Preamble

The House met at half-past Two o'clock

PRAYERS

[Mr. SPEAKER in the Chair]

PRIVATE BUSINESS

CHATHAM AND DISTRICT TRACTION BILL [Lords]

Read the Third time and passed, without amendment.

LIVERPOOL CORPORATION BILL [Lords]

As amended, considered.

Amendments made to the Bill.

Standing Order 205 (Notice of Third Reading) suspended; Bill to be read the Third time forthwith.—[The Chairman of Ways and Means.]

Bill accordingly read the Third time and passed, with Amendments.

MAIDSTONE CORPORATION BILL [Lords]

As amended, considered.

Standing Order 205 (Notice of Third Reading) suspended; Bill to be read the Third time forthwith.—[The Chairman of Ways and Means.]

Bill accordingly read the Third time and passed, with Amendments.

PRIVATE BILLS

Standing Order 208 (Notice of Consideration of Lords Amendments) suspended until the Summer Adjournment:

As regards Private Bills to be returned by the House of Lords with Amendments, such Amendments be considered at the next sitting of the House after the day on which the Bill shall have been returned from the Lords:—When Amendments thereto are intended to be proposed by the Promoters, a copy of such Amendments to be deposited in the Private Bill Office, and Notice thereof given not later than the day before that on which the Amendments made by the House of Lords are proposed to be taken into consideration.—[The Chairman of Ways and Means.]

Oral Answers to Questions — AGRICULTURE, FISHERIES AND FOOD

Fisheries (Conservation Measures)

Mr. Hector Hughes: asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food in which areas off the coast of England and Wales he institutes conservation measures governing fishing by British vessels, other than measures taken under international agreements.

The Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (Mr. Heathcoat Amory): The sea fisheries committees, together with some river boards and harbour boards, cover between them all our coastal waters and their byelaws, made with my approval, contain various conservation measures.

Mr. Hughes: When the Minister emphasises the word "all," does he include Scottish waters as well? Can he say whether all these regulations have been observed, or whether there has been any prosecution in respect of the breach of them?

Mr. Amory: I was speaking of England and Wales, excluding Scotland. I cannot say offhand what prosecutions there have been under the byelaws of the various sea fisheries committees.

Mr. Edward Evans: When the Minister talks about conservation measures, does he include regulations about the size of the mesh? If so, will he see that those regulations are imposed on foreign fishermen as stringently as they are upon British fishermen?

Mr. Amory: Yes. What I said would cover regulations as to size of mesh made under the byelaws of the fisheries committees concerned and the river boards. As to foreign fishermen, each country is responsible for enforcing the international regulations on its own fishing.

Food and Agriculture Organisation (Tenth Anniversary)

Mr. Hurd: asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what arrangements are being made to celebrate, in October, the Tenth Anniversary of the


founding of the Food and Agriculture Organisation of the United Nations and to bring a wider realisation of the value of the work of this organisation.

Mr. Amory: This is now being considered in consultation with a number of organisations having a special interest in the work of the Food and Agriculture Organisation.

Mr. Hurd: Will my right hon. Friend give an undertaking that adequate arrangements will be made to celebrate in this country the Tenth Anniversary of the founding of the Food and Agriculture Organisation? Many of us feel that the value of the work done by this Organisation deserves still further recognition.

Mr. Amory: I agree with what my hon. Friend has said. We will do our very best to make this important occasion a worthy one.

Mr. Gooch: Does the Minister appreciate that much of the fine work done by the Food and Agriculture Organisation is little known by the general public? If he undertakes to arrange celebrations on a scale that would enable us to put it over to the public in a non-party way, I feel that that would be in the general interest.

Mr. Amory: I agree. The United Kingdom National Committee of the Food and Agriculture Organisation now has the matter in hand in consultation with various public organisations.

Home-grown Wheat

Mr. Hurd: asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food how much home-grown wheat of the 1954 crop has been purchased by flour millers in comparison with the amount so used from the 1953 crop; and if he is satisfied that farmers have readily through the year been able to find a market for all the sound wheat offered for sale.

Mr. Amory: Flour millers purchased 1.378,000 tons of home-grown wheat of the 1954 crop and 1,644,000 tons from the 1953 crop. The answer to the second part of the Question is "Yes, Sir."

Mr. Willey: Can the Minister say how much home-grown grain was dumped abroad and at what cost to the Treasury?

Mr. Amory: No, I certainly cannot. I do not think that that arises from this Question.

Dispossession Orders (Ironstone Working)

Mr. Mitchison: asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food whether he is aware that Mr. Blaxley, tenant of what remains of Eastfield Farm, Rushton, Northamptonshire, has had to quit SO acres of his farm and will shortly have to quit the remaining 60 acres in order to allow ironstone working, and that he is unable to get possession of Langton Farm, Isham, which he has bought to replace Eastfield Farm; and what steps he proposes to take to avoid the hardship caused to farmers by dispossession for ironstone working and to assist them to farm elsewhere.

Mr. Amory: I am aware of the facts of this case. I understand that the tenant is being required to give up the land in accordance with the terms of his tenancy agreement. I have no powers that would enable me to avoid any hardship caused in such cases or to assist those concerned to farm elsewhere.

Mr. Mitchison: Will the right hon. Gentleman look into this matter generally and see whether he can do anything to help these farmers who are being turned out on a rather large scale for the purpose of ironstone working?

Mr. Amory: I will certainly look into the matter, as the hon. and learned Member suggests, but I think he would agree that in most cases there were definite provisions in the lease to cover the eventuality of the land being required for ironstone working.

New Fishing Vessels (Grants)

Dame Irene Ward: asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food how many new fishing vessels are being built under the subsidy arrangements of the White Fish Authority; how the distribution runs among the fishing ports; and whether he is satisfied that all ports from which applications for grants have been received are now being effectively supplied with vessels.

Mr. Amory: The White Fish Authority has approved applications for grant on 80 near-and middle-water trawlers. To


state their distribution among the ports involves giving a number of figures, and, with permission, I will circulate them in the OFFICIAL REPORT. Rebuilding is proceeding well at some ports, but I hope to see many more applications for grant from most of the major ports before the end of the period for which grants are available. In addition to near-and middle-water trawlers, the Authority has approved applications for grant on 192 inshore vessels and 140 engines for inshore boats.

Dame Irene Ward: May I have an assurance that my right hon. Friend will take as much interest in North Shields, in spite of the bad temper of the right hon. Member for Easington (Mr. Shin-well)? Will he bear in mind that the fishing industry is of equal importance to this country and to the population as the mining industry, and that we want our full share of support?

Mr. Amory: I assure my hon. Friend that my interest in North Shields is unlimited.

Mr. Hector Hughes: Of that very satisfactory number of new vessels built under the subsidy from the White Fish Authority, how many are oil-burning and how many are coal-burning? Is the White Fish Authority taking any steps to en-that all those boats are oil-burning; and against coal-burning ships?

Mr. Amory: I speak without having the figures before me, but I should think that all those boats are oil burning; and probably most of them diesel.

Mr. Hughes: Thank you.

Following are the figures:


NUMBER OF APPLICATIONS FOR GRANT APPROVED BY THE WHITE FISH AUTHORITY AT THE DIFFERENT PORTS


Applications approved


Fleetwood
…
…
23


Lowestoft
…
…
21


Grimsby
…
…
11


Granton
…
…
6


Aberdeen
…
…
5


Yarmouth
…
…
4


Hartlepool
…
…
3


Milford Haven
…
…
3


North Shields
…
…
2


Fraserburgh
…
…
1


St.Monance
…
…
1





80

Departmental Envelopes (Economy Labels)

Mr. Cunningham: asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food to what extent it is the practice of his Department, when envelopes are in use for the first time, to send them out with economy labels containing the recipient's name and address affixed thereto; and whether, in the interests of economy, he will take steps to stop such a practice.

Mr. Amory: The standard practice of my Department is that economy labels should be used only with old envelopes or ungummed new ones.

Harvest Prospects

Sir I. Fraser: asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food whether, on the basis of preliminary reports, he will make a statement about the prospects of this year's harvest.

Mr. Amory: The latest reports are for 1st July. These showed that the condition of the crops in England and Wales was then generally satisfactory. The yield per acre of corn crops was estimated to be about equal to the average of the last ten years, but it was too early to estimate the probable yields of root crops. I expect the next reports, for 1st August, to show a continuation of good prospects for the harvest in view of the recent fine weather, which we must all hope will last over the harvesting period.

Sir I. Fraser: Has my right hon. Friend had no report on the hay crop?

Mr. Amory: Yes, I have had a good many reports. I am glad to say that an excellent lot of hay seems to have been got in in most parts of the country. That is just what we wanted, of course, after the exceptionally bad weather of last winter.

Imported Seeds (Lucerne Eelworm)

Mr. B. Harrison: asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if, in view of the fact that his Department has identified lucerne eelworm in a crop growing at Deal Hall, Burnham-on-Crouch, he is aware that the seed was imported from France; and if he will take steps to prevent the further import of affected seed.

Mr. Amory: Two small patches of lucerne eelworm were found in a field on this farm by my officers, who were informed that the seed had been imported from France. It is thought that lucerne eelworm can be seed-borne, but this cannot be confirmed pending further investigation, which is in hand. The question of imposing health restrictions on imported seed is under consideration.

Mr. Harrison: Will my right hon. Friend consider sending one of the officers of his Department over to France or, possibly, Hungary to study the control of this disease?

Mr. Amory: I will take every step that seems advisable. We ought to allow the present investigation to go a bit further before we decide what steps will be necessary; but I assure my hon. Friend that I am treating this matter seriously.

Fish and Chip Industry (Costs)

Mr. Janner: asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food whether he is aware that the rising costs of potatoes, gas, electricity and frying oil are making it difficult for the fish and chip industry of this country to carry on; and, in view of the importance of preserving the industry from the point of view of public amenity and the ensuring of adequate outlets for landings of British fish, what action he proposes to take in the matter.

Mr. Amory: Any recent decline in sales I would expect in the main to be due to normal seasonal factors. I do not consider any action by me is called for or would be useful.

Mr. Janner: Is the Minister aware that quite a large number of these shops are closing down in Leicester and the Midlands, costs having gone up by 500 per cent. since 1947? As these shops provide a stable food for a large number of people, particularly pensioners and others, will the Minister do something about protecting the interests of the people by reducing the costs?

Mr. Amory: I was not aware of the information that the hon. Member mentions about Leicester, but I cannot accept his computation that raw materials generally for the fish fryers have gone up by 500 per cent. since 1947.

Grassland (Yields)

Mr. Crouch: asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food the estimated yield of grass per acre in 1952, 1953, and 1954, from permanent pasture and leys, respectively.

Mr. Amory: Yields from either temporary or permanent grass are extremely difficult to measure, and show enormously wide variations from farm to farm. I regret, therefore, that the information asked for is not available. My hon. Friend will agree, I am sure, that under favourable conditions and with good management, leys are generally more productive than permanent pasture, and are therefore greatly to be encouraged.

Mr. Crouch: I am rather surprised at that answer. In view of the fact that grass is the most important crop we grow, can he put some of his statisticians on to getting this information for us for a future date?

Mr. Amory: I entirely agree that grass is an important crop. In fact, it is one of our most valuable agricultural assets. If my hon. Friend knows of a quick way of calculating the yield of grassland, I would be grateful if he would give me details.

Mr. Crouch: There are certain ways of collecting the information, and I will with pleasure give to my right hon. Friend the address of the people concerned.

Mr. Amory: With the proviso that they are accurate ways.

Mr. Crouch: asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food the estimated yield of hay per acre in 1952, 1953, and 1954, from permanent pasture and leys, respectively.

Mr. Amory: As the answer contains a number of figures, I will, with permission, circulate it in the OFFICIAL REPORT.

Mr. Crouch: Does my right hon. Friend have figures of the yield from the better hay crops?

Mr. Amory: The figures of temporary grass, which would be the best, are: In 1952, 31 cwt.; 1953, 32 cwt.; 1954, 29 cwt.; the drop being due, of course, to the exceptionally bad weather. I hope very much that there will be a further increase in the making of sileage.

Following are the figures:


ESTIMATED YIELDS PER ACRE OF HAY IN ENGLAND AND WALES


—
1952
1953
1954



cwt.
cwt.
cwt.


From permanent grass
…
21·5
22·5
21·3


From temporary grass
…
31·2
31·9
29·1


From lucerne
…
43·3
44·5
42·2

Herring Fleet, North Shields (Sailing)

Dame Irene Ward: asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food when the herring fishing boats of North Shields were able to sail following the ban imposed by the Herring Board.

Mr. Amory: The herring boats were able to sail from 9 a.m. on Saturday last.

Dame Irene Ward: Will my right hon. Friend bear in mind that this hold-up was partly due to the fact that the Herring Board, for one reason or another, seems to be short of capital? Can he exercise as much pressure on the Chancellor as the Minister of Fuel and Power, so that the fishing interests are not impeded by lack of capital? And can I help him in that?

Mr. Amory: Perhaps the first thing my hon. Friend would do to help me is clarify her question. I do not quite follow her reasoning. The reason for this temporary ban was the exceptionally heavy landings of herring at most of the ports and the fact that a large proportion of the herring landed was not suitable for the fresh market or for pickle curing, and, therefore, had to go for the oil and meal factories, which were temporarily glutted.

Dame Irene Ward: Lack of capital.

Mr. G. R. Howard: Would my right hon. Friend not agree that perhaps what was in the mind of my hon. Friend the Member for Tynemouth (Dame Irene Ward) was that capital for producing freezing equipment might be useful—

Dame Irene Ward: Hear, hear.

Mr. Howard: —and that if that equipment were produced the cost would be infinitesimal compared with the prices being paid for coal at this time?

Dame Irene Ward: Hear, hear.

Mr. Amory: I agree with my hon. Friend to this extent, that I think that freezing is one of the matters concerning the fishing industry to which it is right that we should give a very great deal of attention. We are doing that.

Hens (Laying Capacity)

Mr. Hurd: asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food to what extent the laying capacity of the British hen has improved since 1939.

Mr. Amory: I am advised that an average increase of 15 eggs per hen since the period immediately before the war would be a fair inference from such data as are available.

Mr. Hurd: Could my right hon. Friend tell us how that satisfactory improvement in performance compares with comparable performances in Holland and Denmark, from which we buy eggs?

Mr. Amory: No, I am sorry I cannot give that information offhand. If we have that information available, I will see that it is given to my hon. Friend. The improvement has been due, of course, to more successful breeding and to better management, and I hope we have not reached the end of that progress.

Questions to Ministers

Mr. Edward Evans: On a point of order. I apologise, Mr. Speaker, for raising this matter, but last week I put down a Question to the Joint Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food about the increased cost of coal to the white fish industry and I asked him in a supplementary question whether if he could give us a similar assurance about the herring fishing industry. The Minister suggested that I should put a Question down, and I did so, naturally, to the Secretary of State for Scotland, who is responsible for the herring fishing industry. I was informed last week that the Question had been transferred to the right hon. Gentleman, and I see that it is on the Paper for tomorrow as No. 131, so that there is no hope that it will be orally answered.
This is a rather serious matter, because it affects the whole of the herring fishing industry. The drifters are working their way down the East Coast, and in October, before the House reassembles, the great East Anglian herring fishery will be in


full activity. The owners of drifters, especially of coal-burning vessels, are very concerned about their increased costs. I am asking if it would be possible for the Minister or the Joint Parliamentary Secretary to make a statement on this subject after Questions.

Mr. Speaker: Not today, anyhow. I was quite unaware of the facts that the hon. Member has narrated to me. I am sorry for him in the predicament in which he finds himself, but it has nothing to do with me. There is no Question on the Paper about that today. I do not know about tomorrow.

Mr. Fell: Is it not a little unusual for a Question to be transferred in that manner? Perhaps I am unaware of the procedure—

Lieut.-Colonel Lipton: The hon. Member is.

Mr. Fell: Due modesty is not a bad trait. Is it not a little unusual for a Question to be transferred in that way, especially as there are only 17 Questions to my right hon. Friend today, whereas the hon. Member's Question is No. 131 tomorrow?

Mr. Speaker: I am sorry, but I cannot do anything about it. It has nothing to do with me.

Mr. Evans: Further to the point of order. Can the Minister make a statement today or tomorrow?

Mr. Speaker: It is not a question of order, whether he can or not. The Minister, no doubt, has heard what has been said. It is not a matter for me, and it is not a point of order.

Dame Irene Ward: Ring up the Minister.

Oral Answers to Questions — FORESTRY COMMISSION

Rates (Collection)

Mr. Speir: asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food whether it has now been possible for the Forestry Commission to arrange to collect rates due to local authorities from their employees at the same time as they now collect rents due to the Commission.

Mr. Amory: I regret that this would not be practicable.

Mr. Speir: Does my right hon. Friend realise that the local authorities wish it, the unions wish it and the employers wish it? Will he look at the matter again?

Mr. Amory: When my hon. Friend put the Question down, I had another look at the matter, but the difficulty is that the Forestry Commission has 3,500 tenancies, which are very much scattered all over the country and over a very large number of different local authorities.

Heather Burning

Mr. Speir: asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food whether the Forestry Commission has now been able to make arrangements for assisting occupiers of properties adjoining the Commission's plantations to burn heather in the neighbourhood of those plantations.

Mr. Amory: In March last the Commissioners decided, as a trial in certain areas, to offer to assist neighbouring occupiers by burning on land adjoining Commission plantations.

Mr. Speir: May I ask the Minister to encourage the Commission to be a little more generous and more neighbourly, because this protects the Commission's property as well as that of the occupiers?

Mr. Amory: I should like to assure my hon. Friend that the Commission takes a very conscientious view of its responsibilities in this matter. It sees the advantages to the Commission, but of course it is also conscious of the risk it might run of claims for damage from third parties. I am sure that it gives consideration to all these questions.

Mr. Speir: If the experiment goes well, will the Commission try to extend it as soon as possible?

Mr. Amory: I think that would be the general policy so far as trials are successful, to test the position in other places and to extend it if it were found possible to do so.

Dustbins

Mr. Speir: asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food how far it is the practice of the Forestry Commission to provide a free issue of dustbins for use by their tenants.

Mr. Amory: Practice hitherto has varied, but dustbins are now to be provided free for all tenants of Forestry Commission houses where there is an organised collection of refuse.

Mr. Speir: May I thank my right hon. Friend for that reply?

Mr. Shinwell: Does the Minister not think that this was a silly Question to put down and with which to take up the time of the House?

Oral Answers to Questions — MINISTRY OF HEALTH

Claims for Damages

Mr. Shepherd: asked the Minister of Health the number of cases for damages against National Health Service doctors and Hospital Management Committees brought in the last financial year; and in how many cases damages were secured.

The Minister of Health (Mr. Iain Macleod): I regret that the information asked for is not available.

Disabled Persons (Welfare Services)

Mr. Edward Evans: asked the Minister of Health whether he is aware of the anxiety of local authorities responsible for the implementation of the Sections of the National Assistance Act concerned with the welfare of handicapped persons in respect of the high and increasing cost of these services; and whether he will consider making available to these authorities financial grants to ensure that no disabled person suffers by the failure to provide these statutory services.

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Health (Miss Patricia Hornsby-Smith): The question of provision from Exchequer funds for welfare services for disabled persons is one of the matters under review by the Committee now sitting under the Chairmanship of Lord Piercy. Until the Committee's recommendations have been received my right hon. Friend could not usefully consider the matter.

Mr. Evans: Is the hon. Lady aware of the very considerable strain on local authorities of implementing this very necessary service, which is one which, I know, her right hon. Friend is anxious

that they should undertake? Unless there is some alleviation of the financial burden, there will be a long-continued delay in putting this service into operation. Will she ask her right hon. Friend to give this matter his early consideration?

Miss Hornsby-Smith: I think it is a measure of the importance we attach to it that it is at the moment part of the subject of a survey by a very important committee. Obviously, I cannot anticipate its findings.

Irish Immigrants (Tuberculosis)

Dr. Stross: asked the Minister of Health (1) whether he is aware of the high incidence of pleural effusion and progressive primary tuberculosis lesions in young Irish girls who immigrate to Britain, and who are free from tuberculosis on entry; and what action he proposes to take to give them protection against this disease;
(2) whether he has noted the high incidence of pulmonary tuberculosis in the Irish-born population of London, Glasgow, Liverpool, Manchester, Newcastle, Birmingham and Coventry; whether he is aware of the fact that they become infected in Britain in most cases; what figures are available on this problem; and if he will make a statement.

Mr. Iain Macleod: I am aware of certain studies which have been made on these subjects, but no comprehensive statistical information is available about the condition of immigrants on entry or about the time of infection. Nor could such information be obtained without the imposition of fresh restrictions and controls out of proportion to the danger to public health. The same protective, preventive and treatment services are available to these as to other residents in this country.

Dr. Stross: Will the Minister agree that that answer is not good enough in reality, because this is a very grievous problem which increases with the increasing number of people entering not only from Ireland but from the West Indies and from Africa, many of whom come from agrarian areas and are negative reactors and have no immunity from tuberculosis when they enter this country? Would he therefore not at least


agree to ask, say, the Irish Ministry of Health to assist in seeing that they are skin-tested or given B.C.G. vaccine treatment before coming here? If many do not then receive that treatment, will he ensure that it will be given them when they come here?

Mr. Macleod: On the question of the size of the problem, I would agree that it is, of course, a problem, although I should not like to be thought to agree with all the words that the hon. Gentleman has used. I was advised about two years ago that the figures revealed by the inquiry did not indicate a serious menace to the health of this country. If there is anything useful in the matter I can do with the Irish authorities, of course, I will do it, and I should like to consider the hon. Gentleman's suggestion.

Dr. Strom: Whilst thanking the right hon. Gentleman for what he has just said, may I say that I am sure that if he consults the Irish authorities he will see that the problem is specifically serious, not to us here particularly but to Irish young men and women who contract tuberculosis after coming here?

Mr. Macleod: I hope that I can make it clear that I do not want anything that I have said to be taken as suggesting that the Eire authorities are not deeply concerned about this matter. I am sure that they are.

Mr. Marquand: Can the Minister say whether these immigrants are informed on landing of the services that are available? I agree that they are available to them, as to others, but do they know?

Mr. Macleod: I should have thought that everybody knows now that these services in this country are freely available to everybody without restriction. I should have thought that even newcomers are aware of that, but if there is any gap in that respect I will certainly look into the matter.

Sir T. Moore: Is there any real basis for these somewhat startling allegations made in respect of one particular form of immigrant from one particular country?

Mr. Macleod: There has been a great deal of discussion of this matter in the scientific papers, in the "Lancet" and papers published by the Eire Health Department and so on. Beyond question

the figures are, as I called them, a problem, but I should like to make it clear to my hon. Friend the Member for Ayr (Sir T. Moore) that I do not accept all the statements that have been made by the hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent, Central (Dr. Stross).

Dr. Stross: asked the Minister of Health how many beds are allocated for the treatment of pulmonary tuberculosis in the North-West Metropolitan Region; and how many of these beds are occupied by immigrants from Irish rural areas.

Mr. Iain Macleod: The answer to the first part of the Question is 2,568: I regret that the information asked for in the second part is not available.

Dr. Stross: Is the right hon. Gentleman not aware that the number of beds for the treatment of tuberculosis occupied in the North-West Metropolitan Region by Irish immigrants, most of whom come from agrarian areas and are in a young age group, is more than the sum total of all beds occupied by foreigners from all over the world? Does not that high-light the fact that the problem is serious?

Mr. Macleod: The hon. Member seems to be better informed than I am. That may well be so, and perhaps he would like to tell me the source of his information.

Dr. Stross: In view of the request made and the fact that I then have the Adjournment, I will give the information on Wednesday night.

Invalid Tricycles (Repairs)

Mr. Osborne: asked the Minister of Health if he is aware that Mr. A. Spall, 3, Coronation Cottages, Cleethorpes, an ex-naval pensioner, sent his invalid's motor vehicle for minor repairs to the official repair depot last December, and that the repairs have not yet been done; and if he will give instructions that such minor repairs may be done at any local garage, and so avoid ex-Service men being deprived of their motor vehicles for such long periods.

Mr. Iain Macleod: Existing arrange-meets provide for any minor repairs to be undertaken by local garages, but the repairs needed in this case were extensive. It was, therefore, necessary for them to be done by a suitable approved firm.


The unusual delay has been due in part to labour shortage and in part to difficulty in getting certain spare parts. In view of the delay I am arranging for a suitable replacement machine to be supplied at once.

Mr. Osborne: Whilst thanking my right hon. Friend for the action that he has taken, may I ask him, on the general principle, whether he would not allow these repairs to be done much more locally? This carriage had to be sent from Cleethorpes to Skegness, a distance of 30 miles, whereas at places like Cleethorpes and Grimsby there must be good garages where the work could be done without depriving an ex-Service man of his vehicle.

Mr. Macleod: There seems to be something of a misapprehension in my hon. Friend's Question. He refers to minor repairs and, as I made clear, they were extensive repairs. If they are minor repairs, they can and should be done locally, but any larger repairs must clearly be done by approved firms.

District Nurses, Worcestershire

Mr. Dance: asked the Minister of Health how many vacancies there are for district nursing staff in Worcestershire.

Miss Hornsby-Smith: I am informed that the number of vacancies is nine.

Overseas Medical Treatment (Reciprocal Arrangements)

Sir F. Medlicott: asked the Minister of Health what discussions are taking place with the United States Government with a view to reciprocal arrangements being made for the provision of medical or hospital treatment for British subjects visiting the United States of America.

Mr. Iain Macleod: No discussions are taking place, since the health services of the United States do not offer any suitable common basis for reciprocal arrangements.

Sir F. Medlicott: Is it not a little out of balance that the large number of American visitors to this country, whom we all warmly welcome, receive these advantages, whereas the smaller number of British visitors to America do not have comparable facilities? Would it not be possible to have discussions with the object of reviewing the matter?

Mr. Macleod: It may be difficult. If one is to have reciprocal arrangements, one must have something that one can be reciprocal with. Medical and hospital treatment in the United States are on a private footing. While that position remains it is a little difficult to do anything.

Sir F. Medlicott: asked the Minister of Health what proposals he has for providing financial assistance for British subjects who have occasion to receive medical or hospital treatment when visiting foreign countries with whom no reciprocal arrangements exist complementary to the British Health Service.

Mr. Iain Macleod: It is the Government's policy wherever possible to negotiate reciprocal arrangements with foreign countries in respect of social services, including medical care; but it would not be practicable to refund directly the cost of medical treatment received abroad by people normally living in this country.

Sir F. Medlicott: Is it not a little unfair that the British taxpayer has to bear the cost of treatment afforded to foreign visitors? Is there no hope of persuading more countries to follow the excellent lead that we have given in this respect?

Mr. Shinwell: Given by a Labour Government.

Mr. Macleod: Somebody has to lead in this matter. [HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear."] I have not the power under the Acts to carry out the suggestions made in my hon. Friend's Question and, as I think the House would agree, it would be impossible to use public money for such a purpose because it would not be possible to check the standard of treatment given or whether the charges made were reasonable. But as countries come to have systems which are even remotely comparable with ours, so can we begin to have reciprocal arrangements.

Mr. D. Jones: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that I have recently sent him particulars of cases relating to British seamen who have found it necessary to have medical and surgical treatment in foreign ports and have had to pay for it despite the fact that they are taxpayers and ratepayers in this country? Will the right hon. Gentleman see whether it is possible to make arrangements for captains of foreign-going vessels to meet


the cost of such treatment in foreign countries and be refunded when they return to this country?

Mr. Macleod: I will certainly look at the cases which the hon. Member has in mind, but I am still governed by the fact that under the Act, I have no such powers as are suggested.

Mr. J. R. H. Hutchison: Has my right hon. Friend seen a list of interim agreements arrived at by all the nations which form the Council of Europe, not only in relation to old-age pensions but to sickness and the facilities made available.in each of those fifteen countries? Do they not go a long way towards bringing about exactly what my hon. Friend the Member for Norfolk, Central (Sir F. Medlicott), is asking for and what my right hon. Friend is dealing with in his replies?

Mr. Macleod: I want to see these reciprocal arrangements made, as I am sure everybody does. We have a great number already, for example, in the case of insurance, which in many ways is a similar problem. We have arrangements with some countries for medical care. Where there is any arrangement in the country concerned which enables us to come to an agreement, I am more than happy to do so, but such arrangements cannot be wholly one-sided.

Medicine Bottles

Sir I. Fraser: asked the Minister of Health the cost to the National Health Service last year of supplying medicine bottles; and whether he will institute a system of returnable deposits to effect economy.

Miss Hornsby-Smith: Chemists are remunerated for supplying all containers, including medicine bottles, by a flat rate payment for each prescription dispensed. The approximate cost in England and Wales during 1954 was £1,138,000. A system of returnable deposits has often been considered, but not thought practicable.

Insurance Companies (Death Certificates)

Mr. Sparks: asked the Minister of Health if he is aware of the growing practice of some insurance companies who,

without requiring medical evidence, insure the lives of old-age pensioners who at the time are suffering from diseases which invalidate the claim; and if in these circumstances he will take steps to relieve medical practitioners from the duty of supplying insurance companies with certificates of the cause of death.

Miss Hornsby-Smith: No, Sir. My right hon. Friend is not aware of any statutory obligation upon medical practitioners to supply insurance companies with certificates of the cause of death.

Mr. Sparks: Do I understand the hon. Lady to say now that there is no statutory obligation on the medical practitioner to supply certificates setting out the cause of death in cases like this?

Miss Hornsby-Smith: So far as statutory obligations are concerned, the doctor has to notify the registrar of deaths and to inform the near relatives or a person present at the death that he has done so in the prescribed form of death certificate. Any obligation he may have to supply a certificate to the insurance company is a matter for arrangement between the doctor and the insurance company and does not come under statutory obligation.

Doctors' Lists

Lieut.-Colonel Lipton: asked the Minister of Health why the number of patients on National Health Service doctors' lists in the London area exceeds the population of London; and what action he will take to ensure more accurate records and less waste in paying capitation fees to doctors.

Mr. Iain Macleod: I am informed that the number of patients on doctors' lists in London is not, in fact, in excess of the population, but it is certainly very near to it and there is a good deal of inflation in these lists. This does not affect the cost to the Exchequer, but I am concerned about the problem and am reviewing the present arrangements.

Lieut.-Colonel Lipton: In order to check this further example of inflation under the present Government, is the right hon. Gentleman considering the establishment of a national registration index which is about the only way of making sure that two doctors are not being paid for the same patient?

Mr. Macleod: Inflation of this nature in doctors' lists does not add to the cost on the Exchequer. That is not done on a patient basis but on the number of doctors there are in the scheme. In reply to the hon. and gallant Member's quip, I should say that inflation was a very great deal worse in this and all other respects under the Socialist Administration. The index is the main matter I am considering, which perhaps might prove to be the solution.

Oral Answers to Questions — HOSPITALS

Medical Equipment (Bulk Purchase)

Mr. Swingler: asked the Minister of Health to what extent, and why, the bulk purchase of medical equipment by his Department for resale to hospitals is declining.

Mr. Iain Macleod: The amount of medical equipment bulk purchased for supply to hospitals has not declined at all. It does fluctuate slightly from year to year, according to the demand.

Mr. Swingler: Is the Minister aware that there are a great many complaints at the moment from hospital authorities which apply to his Department for apparatus and are told to refer direct to the manufacturers? Will he inquire into the situation, because there does seem to be a rising number of complaints by hospital authorities which are unable to get equipment which they were getting, for example, last year?

Mr. Macleod: I am always ready to consider anything which hon. Members draw to my attention, and perhaps the hon. Member will do that. However, the tendency is not downwards. Over the last few years it has been upwards.

Patients (Medical Experiments)

Mr. Swingler: asked the Minister of Health what steps are being taken by his Department to prevent the conduct of medical experiments with harmful effects on the patients concerned.

Mr. Iain Macleod: I have nothing to add to the answer given to the hon. Member on 14th February which has been brought to the notice of the responsible officers of hospital boards.

Mr. Swingler: Will the Minister ask his officers and the Medical Research Council to keep a continuous watch on this matter? Is he aware that there are still occasional reports in the medical Press of experiments with new drugs that are known to have harmful effects on the patients concerned? Will he, therefore, ask those who are nationally responsible for this research to bear that in mind and put a check on those who perhaps are going a little too far in these matters?

Mr. Macleod: Following an exchange which we had in the House, I arranged for this matter to be brought to the notice of secretaries and senior administrative medical officers of the Regional hospital boards and the secretaries of boards of governors. They were given a copy of a confidential memorandum issued by the Medical Research Council to members of its staff who are engaged in any research of this kind. Therefore, I think that the situation has been covered. If the matter needs following up, I will see that that is done.

Convalescent Treatment, Newcastle (Cost)

Dame Irene Ward: asked the Minister of Health the cost to the Newcastle Regional Hospital Board of the convalescent treatment by contractual arrangement for 1954–55 in lieu of beds available in the region.

Mr. Iain Macleod: The answer is £25,203.

Dame Irene Ward: Will my right hon. Friend explain why his predecessor bought or acquired the Prudhoe Memorial Nursing Home and why my right hon. Friend is allowing that building to stand unoccupied and derelict and deteriorating? Is not this the most absurd method of finance? Would it not be better to put the Prudhoe Memorial Nursing Home into operation? Would my right hon. Friend kindly explain why the Newcastle Regional Hospital Board has no beds for convalescents and why we have to send our patients out? Is not this a very bad administrative arrangement indeed?

Mr. Macleod: I should be delighted to explain some, indeed I hope all, these matters to my hon. Friend, but they do not arise from this Question.

War Pensioners

Sir I. Fraser: asked the Minister of Health what administrative action he has taken to ensure that war pensioners requiring hospital treatment do not lose the priorities that were previously afforded in special Ministry of Pensions hospitals.

Mr. Iain Macleod: Special hospitals for war pensioners have so far continued to be administered directly by my Department and war pensioners have continued to have first call on their services. Where units in other hospitals have been transferred to the administration of the local hospital authority, I have required the same priority to be maintained, and I shall do so if and where whole hospitals are transferred in the future. In addition, as my hon. Friend will know, since August, 1953, war pensioners requiring treatment for their accepted disability have enjoyed priority at all National Health Service Hospitals, subject only to the needs of emergency and other urgent cases.

Sir I. Fraser: Does my right hon. Friend think that the appointment by regional hospital boards of persons known to the ex-Service world, particularly perhaps to members of the British Legion or other responsible organisations, would give confidence to the ex-Service men that these priorities have been carried out?

Mr. Macleod: I am sure these priorities are being carried out. I think perhaps it will meet the point my hon. Friend has in mind to say that, if and when these hospitals come into the ordinary stream of hospital administration, we shall take care to see that, where appropriate, some members of the committees are representatives of the bodies concerned with the welfare of ex-Service men.

Hospital, Coventry (Re-building)

Miss Burton: asked the Minister of Health if he is now able to make a statement concerning the delay in the phase three re-building at Stoney Stanton Road Hospital, Coventry; and what is the present position.

Mr. Iain Macleod: Some progress has been made on the contracts referred to in the answer I circulated in the OFFICIAL REPORT on 25th April. Revised plans for Item No. 2, the kitchen, dining and clinical services block, have been received

and approved and tenders were due to be received at the board's offices today. The board's amended proposals for Item No. 4, adaptations to provide additional wards, have been agreed in principle and Item No. 7, the adaptation of the disused boiler house to provide engineers' workshop and stores, has been approved. No further progress has been made with regard to Item No. 5, which is adaptations to the out-patient department, and Item No. 6, the new dental department.

Miss Burton: Is the Minister now saying that real progress is at last being made with the new ward? Is he aware that this is the most urgent need in Coventry, and would he make it quite clear?

Mr. Macleod: Yes. There are still two items, Item 5 and Item 6, on which we have made no progress. I should like to make it clear that the delay in those items does not mean the board cannot go ahead, as indeed it should, with the other items which form phase three of this particular scheme.

Student Nurses

Mr. Sorensen: asked the Minister of Health how far the acceptance of student nurses depends on the resource and decision of hospital matrons; and, in view of the easier position in respect of the number of nurses and student nurses in some hospitals compared with others in the same region, what steps are taken by group or regional hospital authorities to encourage the distribution of student nurses according to hospital needs.

Miss Hornsby-Smith: The acceptance of student nurses for training is very largely at the discretion of the hospital matrons, who are in the best position to judge the suitability of candidates. Regional hospital boards can promote a more even distribution of nursing staff by assisting in the organisation of local recruitment campaigns and by limiting the approved establishments of the more fortunately placed hospitals.

Mr. Sorensen: Is the hon. Lady aware that, in spite of all she said—and I appreciate it—in many hospitals more or less adjacent to each other the staff is very badly distributed in the matter of student nurses and, as a result, some hospitals have a fair number of staff and in others


there are chronic shortages? Could not something more be done to secure a fair distribution of student nurses?

Miss Hornsby-Smith: I appreciate that the nursing establishments of the teaching hospitals are generally very favourably placed compared with other general hospitals, but the demands on nursing staffs are heavier in the teaching hospitals. We have a great deal of co-operation from the vast majority of the teaching hospitals in seconding their staff, particularly to help us out in staffing sanatoria. I am quite sure this must be done by cooperation between the boards of the hospitals rather than by compulsion.

Mr. Sorensen: Will the hon. Lady encourage it?

Miss Hornsby-Smith: Certainly. We do everything we can.

Mentally Defective Children

Mr. Sorensen: asked the Minister of Health approximately how many mentally defective children were admitted into appropriate institutions in 1954; how many are now awaiting admission; what are the proposals or plans for increasing accommodation for mental defectives; to what extent there is a shortage of nursing and other staff; and what is the estimated number of mentally defective or retarded children who are daily attending from their homes special schools or institutions.

Mr. Iain Macleod: Figures in age groups for 1954 are not yet available, but the number of children admitted in 1953 was 1,311. Children awaiting admission at the end of 1954 totalled 3,475, of whom 2,086 were urgent cases. Plans for more hospital beds so far approved include some 7,000 beds for mental defectives of all ages. There is an estimated shortage of approximately 2,000 nurses and some 70 doctors. At the end of 1954 7,150 mentally defective children were attending occupation and industrial centres daily from their homes, and I understand that 15,635 educationally subnormal children were attending special schools as day pupils.

Mr. Sorensen: Is the Minister aware, in view of these still serious figures, that a very great burden rests on many families, causing sometimes tragic conditions in the home? What is he doing to expedite the supply of both nurses and

hospitals for this unfortunate type of patient? Might I also ask him what has been done particularly in regard to the special schools mentioned in the latter part of my Question? Has any attention been paid to that?

Mr. Macleod: The query about the special schools should more appropriately be put down to my right hon. Friend the Minister of Education. As far as the first part of the Question is concerned, we are concentrating deliberately on this shortage which is most serious in the whole of the field of the National Health Service, and all our publicity drives and the new campaign we are having this autumn will be particularly directed towards the mental field.

Mr. Nicholson: Is my right hon. Friend aware that there are many cases of children whose removal to some home or institution is urgently desirable from every point of view, but that there is no vacancy for them and the parents very often cannot afford to pay to go to a private institution? Is there any provision for financial help for these people while such children are awaiting a vacancy?

Mr. Macleod: I think the best method of dealing with the case which my hon. Friend has in mind is for the local authority to use the powers given under the circular to arrange short-term care for the child so as to enable the mother to go on holiday and have a rest, thus relieving the burden of the waiting period until a place can be found for the child.

NUCLEAR WEAPON TESTS

Mr. P. Noel-Baker: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether, in view of the official proposal made by Mr. Cabot Lodge in the United Nations General Assembly, that a scientific inquiry should be made by the United Nations into the dangers of radio-activity resulting from the test explosion of nuclear bombs, he will propose the suspension by all governments of such tests for the period of one year while the inquiry is made.

The Minister of State for Foreign Affairs (Mr. Anthony Miffing): No, Sir.

Mr. Noel-Baker: Now that the Russian Government have officially proposed the


suspension of the tests, would not it be much wiser for the Government to agree to it for at least a year while scientific inquiries are made? Why cannot we agree? Is it because we wish to test the hydrogen bomb ourselves? If so, would it not be much more in the spirit of the Geneva Conference to hold it up?

Mr. Nutting: If the right hon. Gentleman looks at the Russian proposal of 10th May in the Disarmament Conference, he will see that the Russians do not propose that there should be this suspension of atomic and nuclear test explosions as an isolated act. They suggest that the suspension of the tests should form an early part of a disarmament agreement, which is an entirely different proposal from that of the right hon. Gentleman.

Mr. A. Henderson: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether, with a view to facilitating the acquisition of scientific knowledge on radiation by both official and unofficial agencies, Her Majesty's Government will now consult with the other Governments concerned on the cessation of all nuclear tests until such scientific knowledge is obtained.

Mr. Nutting: No, Sir. I am advised that the cessation of nuclear tests would be of no assistance to scientific research into the problems of radiation. As I told the hon. and learned Member for Aberdeen, North (Mr. Hector Hughes) on 20th July, our policy is to work for an international disarmament agreement covering conventional and nuclear armaments.

Mr. Henderson: Does the Minister's reply mean that at the forthcoming meeting of the United Nations Disarmament Commission the question of banning tests will be considered? May I ask the Minister whether he is aware of the continuous evidence being produced by official as well as unofficial agencies, culminating in a report of an international medical commission, I think last week, on the dangers of radio-activity? Does not he consider the matter to be urgent?

Mr. Nutting: As the right hon. and learned Gentleman knows, the Medical Research Council is going into this whole question and the result of this examination will be laid before Parliament and the public. So far as our existing information goes, it is based on the statement by Sir John Cockcroft on 20th April to

the Parliamentary and Scientific Committee that:
The level of radioactive contamination in the world produced by all the atomic bomb explosions and peaceful atomic energy activities is at present so low that it should not cause any anxiety.

Mr. Henderson: Can the Minister at least undertake that this matter will be discussed at the forthcoming meeting in September? Will he not at least agree to discuss it?

Mr. Nutting: Everything relevant to disarmament will no doubt be discussed at the forthcoming meeting.

Mr. Henderson: Including this?

GERMANY (RE-UNIFICATION)

Mr. Zilliacus: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he will seek an agreed solution of the German problem at the Four-Power talks through the admission of Germany and all ex-enemy European States to the United Nations, implementing the provisions of Articles 52 and 53 of the Charter relating to the maintenance of international peace and security, and making the fullest use of the Economic Committee for Europe of the United Nations to promote intra-European trade and economic development.

Mr. Nutting: As the hon. Member is aware, the problems of Germany and of European security have been discussed at Geneva and referred for further study to the four Foreign Ministers.

Mr. Zilliacus: Is the Minister aware that in the discussions at Geneva and in the directive to the Foreign Ministers, apart from the reference of disarmament questions to the sub-committee of the United Nations, no attempt whatever was made to use the machinery or obligations of the United Nations Charter in order to solve these issues? Would not the deadlock be broken were the Government to make a serious attempt to find a solution based on implementing the relevant obligations of the Charter?

Mr. Nutting: Everything done by Her Majesty's Government in the field of foreign affairs is in full accordance with their obligations under the United Nations Charter. I do not think it lies in the


mouth of the hon. Gentleman to say that at Geneva an attempt was not made to settle the German problem. It is the cardinal question in the division of Europe and hence of the world today.

BRITISH DESTROYERS (SALE TO EGYPT)

Mr. Patrick Maitland: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs what warships Her Majesty's Government have agreed to transfer to Egypt.

Mr. Nutting: Her Majesty's Government agreed on 21st of May to sell two "Z" class destroyers to Egypt. The Egyptian authorities have since paid for these vessels and are making the necessary arrangements for a refit in this country.

Mr. Maitland: If it is the case that we do not sell arms to those who may turn them against us, can my right hon. Friend say whether we should delay transferring those vessels until we have had satisfaction for and settlement of the Aqaba Gulf incident?

Mr. Nutting: No, Sir. But I can offer this much consolation to my hon. Friend; the refit will take at least several months and, possibly, a year.

Mr. Shinwell: While the transfer may be delayed as the right hon. Gentleman has intimated, can we have some assurance that these warships will in no circumstances be used against British ships engaged in open and lawful trading operations in the Canal?

Mr. Nutting: As the right hon. Gentleman well knows, we are still applying the policy laid down in the Tripartite Declaration of 1950 to provide a limited quantity of arms to Middle Eastern States for their legitimate self-defence—

Mr. Shinwell: Answer the question.

Mr. Nutting: —and we have also recently released two similar destroyers to Israel.

Mr. Callaghan: May I ask the right hon. Gentleman what public statement has been made about this transfer of ships and whether an undertaking was not given to the House, in view of the similarity of this incident with earlier incidents, that before any further transfer

took place, an announcement should be made from the Government Dispatch Box? Has that undertaking been kept?

Mr. Nutting: So far as I am aware, Her Majesty's Government have acted with complete propriety in this matter in informing the House of Commons in answer to this Question. There has been no secrecy about this.

Mr. Callaghan: Further to that answer, does the right hon. Gentleman really think it in conformity with the spirit of the undertaking that a transfer agreed in May should be announced in response to a Question on 25th July? Is not there here some attempt at concealment?

Mr. Nutting: There has been no, attempt at concealment whatsoever.

Mr. Callaghan: In that case—[HON. MEMBERS: "Oh."]—I regret that I must insist on this point. An undertaking was given to the House that an announcement would be made. May I ask the Minister why two months have gone by before any announcement has been made, in view of the fact that the Egyptians have been firing on British ships and we are still engaged in transferring them?

Mr. Nutting: I am unaware of the undertaking to which the hon. Gentleman refers. So far as this transfer and release is concerned, I am not aware of any impropriety on the part of the Government.

Mr. Fell: Would my right hon. Friend consider very carefully before any transfers of any warlike equipment are made from this country to any State which considers itself in a state of war with any other State?

Mr. Nutting: Of course we go into these matters extremely carefully before any releases are made. We seek to preserve a balance and, in the case of these destroyers, we have preserved a balance. We regard it as important from the point of view of preserving a balance, to keep these arms deliveries, so far as possible, within our own hands, and not let them get into the hands of possibly irresponsible Governments of other countries.

Mr. Morrison: Is there not a point in the hon. Gentleman's Question? Egypt is in a declared state of war with another country, as are some other countries. Egypt has fired on our ships. Is it not


utterly inappropriate that we should be supplying warships, and other warlike weapons, to a country which is in a state of war and which has been firing on our ships?

Mr. Nutting: I am astonished at the right hon. Gentleman's question, considering that we are operating both the spirit and the letter of that policy as laid down in the Tripartite Declaration of 1950 of which he himself was a signatory.

Mr. Morrison: The Tripartite Treaty was before my period of office. In any case, is not the right hon. Gentleman riding off on an irrelevant issue? What has the Tripartite Treaty to do with this? The point I am putting to the right hon. Gentleman, and the one which was put by his hon. Friend, is that Egypt is in a state of war. Surely, we should not supply warships to a country which is in a state of war of its own volition, and, secondly, which has been firing on British ships? What are the Government doing in supplying warships so that they may fire on British ships again?

Mr. Nutting: The right hon. Gentleman asked me what the Tripartite Declaration has to do with it; I will tell him. It provides that we shall supply limited quantities of arms to Middle Eastern States for their legitimate self-defence. That is precisely—

Mr. Callaghan: What self-defence is there in firing on British ships?

Mr. Nutting: If the hon. Gentleman will be civil enough to allow me to answer, that is precisely the policy which Her Majesty's Government have followed and will continue to follow.

Mr. Dugdale: In view of the fact that this transaction has been concealed from the House for two months, can the right hon. Gentleman say whether there is any intention of selling further warships to the Egyptian Government, and can the House be informed on the matter before it rises for the Summer Recess?

Mr. Nutting: We have certainly taken no decision about the further sale of warships to the Egyptian Government, or to any other Middle Eastern Government.

ECONOMIC SITUATION

The Chancellor of the Exchequer (Mr. R. A. Butler): I will, with permission, make a statement which, by its nature, may detain the House for a few minutes, but I will be as short as possible.
In my speech on 16th June, in the debate on the Address, I undertook to keep the House informed about any developments in connection with our balance of payments situation.
The monetary measures taken in February have been by their nature slow in their effect on home demand. The trade results for April and May were better, but the strikes, particularly the dock strike—[HON. MEMBERS: "Oh."]—perhaps the House will listen to what I am going to say—have made it difficult to evaluate the more recent figures. But one thing is clear. We are at present absorbing too much of our production at home. Our success in increasing production and our very prosperity require increased imports which, in turn, must be paid for by increased exports. Sufficient extra exports, however, are not yet forthcoming. The strikes have undoubtedly set our export trade back considerably and some of the set-back will prove to be permanent loss, thus adding to the efforts we have to make. Generally, we cannot be satisfied with the way in which our balance of payments and our reserves are moving.
Our foreign exchange position is also being currently affected by many rumours, here and abroad, about our intentions. This has led to sales of sterling, which will adversely affect our reserves in July. My general policy has been to allow rumours to be answered by events as they unfold. But these rumours have reached such unreasonable proportions that I cannot allow them to remain unanswered. I want, therefore, to make it clear that Her Majesty's Government regard the period in front of us as being one of hard work and consolidation to strengthen the home front before we make any further forward move on the exchange front. This is relevant to the future of trade and payments arrangements in Europe, including the renewal of the European Payments Union, which we hope to conclude in Paris this week.
For the time being our primary aim must be to reduce home demand in order to leave room for the extra exports we need. All who can must try to spend less in order to save more. Business firms should endeavour to slow down investment not of the greatest national urgency. Since our principal object is to improve our balance of payments it would be undesirable to check investment leading to increased production for export. For the rest, even though a high level of productive investment is undoubtedly in our long-run national interest, all those embarking on investment projects should consider whether they could not postpone their initiation, irrespective of whether they finance them from their own resources or by borrowing.
However, I wish to deal more particularly today with policy in those fields in which Government action can help to achieve our aim. They are the expenditure of the Government itself, of local authorities and of the nationalised industries; credit restriction; and hire purchase.
I will deal, first, with credit restriction. In this field, while bank deposits have fallen, advances play a particularly important part. I am sure that the banks will use their undoubted power to reduce the amount of credit below what they would be glad to give if times were easier, and that customers, for their part, will reduce their applications for credit to a minimum. I am writing today to the Governor of the Bank of England, asking him to represent to the banks how important it is that they should achieve a positive and significant reduction in the total of bank advances outstanding. I will circulate a copy of my letter in the OFFICIAL REPORT.
In the public sector, the Government, while restricting to the minimum all its expenditure, both current and capital, will pay special attention to its overseas expenditure. In this field, savings have a double effect; they not only reduce the charge on the Budget, but they directly relieve the balance of payments.
I must also seek a lightening of the pressure of local authorities' capital expenditure upon the economy. I appeal to the local authorities to hold back their schemes for capital expenditure as far as they can, and the Ministers concerned

will now adopt a stricter attitude towards proposals by local authorities for capital expenditure for all but the most essential purposes. The recent action of the Government in raising the rates for borrowing from the Public Works Loan Board will ensure that in embarking on capital expenditure local authorities will have to count the full cost resulting from the general increase in money rates.
I now refer to the nationalised industries. The House must remember that the services which they provide are basic to the whole of our economy, and that serious damage could be caused to industry as a whole by inadequacies in the supply of transport and of power. Nevertheless, in response to the Government's request, certain of the capital requirements of the nationalised industries will be reduced in the immediate future in two ways.
First, expenditure on capital projects will be postponed or slowed up as far as may be possible with due regard to contractural obligations and economical administration. This will be done without jeopardising essential objectives such as coal production and nuclear power. Furthermore, the nationalised industries will, so far as practicable, increase their internal resources available for capital purposes, as, indeed, the Central Electricity Authority has already publicly announced is its intention.
Finally, I must deal with private spending in the form of hire-purchase. Since the Government imposed restrictions on hire purchase on 24th February, my right hon. Friend the President of the Board of Trade and I have been watching the effects very closely. Let me emphasise that our object is not to depress the sales of particular goods because they are regarded as less essential or more readily exportable, but to relieve the pressure on home demand generally by asking the consumer to use more of his own income and less borrowed money when he buys the goods of his choice.
We have reached the conclusion that the measures taken in February must now be intensified. My right hon. Friend has, therefore, made an Order, to operate from tomorrow, to increase from 15 to 33⅓ per cent. the minimum deposit required in certain transactions of which the most important are those involving motor


cars and motor cycles, radio and television sets, gramophones, cameras and certain domestic appliances such as refrigerators, washing machines, vacuum cleaners, and gas and electric fires. The maximum repayment periods remain unaltered in all cases.
By such a combination of measures on the Government's part, supported by retraint in spending by individuals and business firms, I hope to achieve the improvement in our internal position which our present situation requires, and which I have always indicated was the first of the pre-conditions for moving to a freer system of trade and payments. In other fields we have made satisfactory progress. We now have opportunities for expanding our trade and we must seize them.
I have said before, and I now repeat, that our economy is fundamentally sound; but we must concentrate all our attention on increasing our competitive power and developing our export trade.

Mr. Gaitskell: The fact that the Chancellor of the Exchequer has been obliged to make such a depressing statement will come as no surprise except to those who were deluded by his speeches at the time of the Budget and during the election. I should like to ask him if he can recall whether any of Her Majesty's present Ministers spoke of hard work and consolidation as being the slogan of the Conservative Party at the time of the election. The statement is a long one; it contains a number of extremely important decisions, and I must, therefore, ask whether he will arrange for time for a debate before the Recess? I hope that that question may be discussed through the usual channels.

The Lord Privy Seal (Mr. Harry Crookshank): If the right hon. Gentleman would like the answer to that question straight away, I can give it to him. We are making arrangements for a debate tomorrow evening. The business already announced is for a debate on Scottish education, and it is suggested that after that we should proceed to a debate upon the economic situation until about 10 o'clock, and then take the rest of the business which has been announced.

Hon. Members: No.

Mr. Gaitskell: The Lord Privy Seal will observe from the reaction of my

hon. Friends that we are not all by any means satisfied that half a day is adequate time for this debate. I again ask that the matter should be discussed through the usual channels, with a view to a full debate taking place.

Mr. Crookshank: That is what I understood had been arranged, through the usual channels.

Mr. Gaitskell: I do not think that the usual channels were familiar with the content of the Chancellor's statement at that time.
Meanwhile, I should like to ask the Chancellor two further specific questions. He referred to local authority spending. Are we to understand from his statement that local authorities' housing programmes are to be cut down still further? Programmes of school building clearly are, but I should like a specific answer upon the question of housing. Secondly, can the Chancellor say whether furniture is or is not included in the list of articles in respect of which the deposit is to be put up to 33⅓ per cent.? Thirdly, is he satisfied that the monetary policy in which he believes really does have a sufficiently sharp enough effect upon consumption generally, or whether, by this means, he is not cutting back investment very much too hard? That being so, could he say whether he now contemplates an autumn Budget to correct the errors of his spring Budget?

Mr. Butler: The right hon. Gentleman opened his remarks with some political observations about the Election. I should be very well satisfied if he would refer to the sound broadcast which I delivered upon the Saturday before the Election, in which I indicated that if there were difficult times—and I said that it was not likely to be "roses all the way"—we should be ready to take all the steps necessary to put things right in time, unlike the right hon. Gentleman himself, who let things slide in the course of his administration.
On the question of a debate, I am, of course, very ready to take part in any debate; indeed, I think it is consonant with the dignity of the House and the importance of the subject that a debate should take place, and I trust that it will be arranged to everyone's satisfaction, as the Leader of the House has said.
In answer to the specific points, first, about the programmes of local authorities —I shall be prepared to go into this in greater length in the course of the debate. Meanwhile, I can say that, in general, existing programmes will not be affected. It is much more a case of slowing down rather than of putting off existing programmes, and not taking on new commitments. We are all trying to do too much at once. It is not a case of slashing any particular programme, but of digesting what we can, because the difficulties of the economy are marginal and not fundamental.
Furniture is not included in the new rise to 33⅓ per cent. The answer to the question about our monetary and investment policy is that we have been very well pleased with the increase in factory building and industrial investment, and the increased production of machine tools. The problem now is, again, not to try to do too much at once. I am satisfied that with the intensified drive for credit restriction we shall get from our monetary policy the results which we desire.
Finally, upon the subject of an autumn Budget, I have nothing to add to what I have previously said to the House—that I am not disposed towards such a step at present.

Mr. Jay: Does the Chancellor think that this new instalment of Conservative freedom will be enough to meet the problem which he himself helped to create with his electioneering Budget, or are we to have an increase in the Bank Rate as well?

Mr. Butler: Had there been any further measures which I wished to announce, I should have announced them today. As to the right hon. Gentleman's question about Conservative freedom, I think that everybody is very well satisfied, as the country illustrated during the Election. I think that both the House and the country are now interested in solving exactly the same problem as that which faced my predecessors, namely, that when the country tends to get a little too fat upon the home front it is difficult to balance our overseas payments. That is because this island economy of ours depends so much upon the import of raw materials and of food.

Sir I. Fraser: Is my right hon. Friend aware that, notwithstanding the short-term political consequences of any actions

which he proposes, the great majority of the people will welcome any steps he takes, however strict and apparently difficult they may seem, provided that they save us from the financial difficulties which forfend?

Mr. Butler: Yes, Sir. I am very much obliged to my hon. and gallant Friend. That is precisely why I took this opportunity—as I undertook to do upon 16th June—of informing the House before it rose, and giving an opportunity for discussion.

Mr. Shinwell: As the matter of a debate has already been mentioned, may I address my question to the Leader of the House, with your consent, Mr. Speaker? He has suggested that there might be a short debate some time tomorrow evening.

Lieut.-Colonel Lipton: For three hours.

Mr. Shinwell: Does not he regard that as very unsatisfactory from the standpoint of the House itself? Would not he agree that the subject of a debate of this kind is much more important than some of the miscellaneous items which are due for discussion? If he finds it difficult to arrange for a full day's debate tomorrow, would he consider having a debate towards the end of the week? Perhaps I could have a little silence from my own Front Bench. The right hon. Gentleman seemed to indicate that this matter of a short debate had been settled through the usual channels. Does he mean by that that there is no possibility of revision, if hon. Members feel that there should be a fuller debate? I am not trying to indulge in any carping criticism of what he said; I am simply putting my point because I think that the debate is so important that it should be much fuller than he has intimated.

Mr. Crookshank: All I can say is that my right hon. Friend is anxious to have this debate tomorrow and that talks took place through the usual channels. Whether the debate should come in the first half or the second half of the day might be arguable. As to the Scottish business put down for tomorrow, I understood quite clearly that the suggestion which I made just now was agreeable to both sides of the House. [HON. MEMBERS: "No."] I see from the nod of the right hon. Gentleman opposite that that is so. Are we to carry on?

Mr. H. Morrison: The Lord Privy Seal has been quite fair. It is quite true that conversations took place through the usual channels, but there is this to be said. At the time those conversations took place we were not fully aware of the text of the Chancellor of the Exchequer's statement. As is usual, some of us became aware of it on coming on to the Front Bench. In the circumstances, in view of the nature of the statement, and also of the fact that because of the Geneva Conference there will have to be a debate on foreign affairs before we depart, perhaps further conversations might take place through the usual channels to enable an adjustment to be made.
I am not complaining about the Leader of the House. I hope that he will not complain about us. It is a little awkward when we have not seen a statement, and then we find it to be one of rather greater importance than we expected. I hope that we can have conversations through the usual channels and can rapidly arrive at an agreement.

Mr. Crookshank: I certainly do not complain of what the right hon. Gentleman has now said, because he has explained exactly what the situation is. We shall be very glad to have further conversations if he wishes that to be done. I am grateful to him for making clear the situation which he had taken up as well as we did.

Mr. Elliot: Would my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House remember that a debate on Scottish education has been promised for a long time, that it is a matter of great importance north of the Border and that any attempt by hon. and right hon. Gentlemen opposite to deprive us of it on this occasion will be greeted with great indignation in the Northern Kingdom?

Mr. Ross: I am sure that all Scottish Members are grateful to the right hon. Member for Kelvingrove (Mr. Elliot) for the belated interest he is showing in the need for a debate on Scottish education. He did not give us very much help when we were pressing for it. Will the Lord Privy Seal remember that this is not just a matter of having only three days in which to meet this week? We have about three months' recess before us. Surely there should be no need to sacrifice the

time of any group or of any hon. Members interested in any specific point. There is no reason why we should not continue to meet for at least another week.

Mr. C. I. Orr-Ewing: Would my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer bear in mind that the new hire-purchase restrictions might lead to more widespread use of rental for home consumer goods? Will he look at this problem with a view to making a statement on it?

Mr. Butler: I will make a note of my hon. Friend's point.

Mr. H. Wilson: Does not the right hon. Gentleman feel that he has been somewhat misleading the House by stressing the effect of the strikes on the balance of exports and imports—[HON. MEMBERS: "No."]—in view of the fact that the gap between imports and exports was already very alarming before any strikes took place? Since the right hon. Gentleman has said that it will be the Government's aim to economise on Government expenditure overseas and balance of payments expenditure overseas, would the right hon. Gentleman tell us, first, how much he thinks we shall have to pay this year on increased interest on balances in this country because of the rise in the Bank Rate, how many tens of millions of pounds that will cost us; and, secondly, how much our dollar balance of payments has been worsened by the frivolous way in which he increased the purchase of dollar commodities, such as grain, which should have been obtained from the sterling area?

Mr. Butler: It is very important, in the national interest, to get as clear as we can on the various effects of the strikes and other causes upon our balance of payments position. There is no doubt that the dock strike particularly had a considerable effect on the trade figures—

Mr. Wilson: Already bad—

Mr. Butler: And in holding up exports, especially the trade figures for June. The trade figures had increased in the two previous months.
One of the difficulties is to get an exact tally of the situation, because of the confused position arising from the strike. The


one advantage of having a debate, with more time available, will be that we can get the strikes and other causes—because there are other causes—clear. I shall be the first to desire to get the whole thing into proper perspective. Lastly, the right hon. Gentleman made a demand for certain figures. I will make a note of this and will bring it out in the course of the debate.

Several Hon. Members: Several Hon. Members rose—

Mr. Speaker: Order. We are to have a debate on this matter very soon and we cannot pursue the matter any further now.

Following is the letter from the Chancellor to the Governor of the Bank of England:
I should be glad if you would urgently call the attention of the British Bankers' Association and other bodies concerned to the statement which I have just made in the House of Commons on the economic situation of the country. For convenience, I enclose a copy of that statement.
The essential need of the moment is for a reduction in the total demand on the country's resources. Only a part of that demand is financed by hank advances; but it is an important part and one which, with the cooperation of the banks, can be readily affected by the granting or withholding of credit. In such circumstances, I have no doubt that the banks will agree that it is their duty to reduce the amount of bank credit below what they would be glad to give in less difficult times. Indeed, the necessary reduction in demand is unlikely to be achieved unless the total of

bank advances is reduced below its present level.
It is for the banks to decide what steps they must take to make this policy effective. But I look for a positive and significant reduction in their advances over the next few months.

BILL PRESENTED

LOCAL GOVERNMENT ELECTIONS

Bill to provide for the simultaneous holding of elections of rural district councillors and parish councillors; to require the expenses incurred in relation to the holding of elections of parish councillors to be paid by the council of the rural district within which the parish is situate; to provide for excluding certain days in computing the period of time within which elections to fill casual vacancies occurring in the offices of county, borough and district councillor and elective auditor are required to be held; and for purposes connected with the matters aforesaid, presented by Major Lloyd-George; supported by Mr. Sandys and Sir Hugh Lucas-Tooth; read the First time; to be read a Second time upon Thursday and to be printed. [Bill 38.]

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

Proceedings on Government Business exempted at this day's Sitting, from the provisions of Standing Order No. 1 (Sittings of the House). — [Mr. Crookshank.]

Orders of the Day — CONSOLIDATED FUND (APPROPRIATION) BILL

Considered in Committee.

[SIR CHARLES MACANDREW in the Chair]

Clauses 1 and 2 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Orders of the Day — Clause 3.—(APPROPRIATION OF SUMS VOTED FOR SUPPLY SERVICES.)

Motion made, and Question proposed, That the Clause stand part of the Bill.

3.56 p.m.

Mr. Ellis Smith: This is a little unfair. The Clause deals with the appropriation of sums voted for supply services, and raises the whole issue of how the debate will be conducted.

The Chairman: As the hon. Member knows, the Committee stage of the Bill usually goes through without debate. On the Third Reading we might have a debate.

Mr. Smith: Yes, Sir Charles, but I would make a submission for your consideration, based upon several points of order. If you agree, I propose to make the submissions together rather than to make them separately, as that will facilitate business and will enable most hon. Members to understand the basis upon which the Bill will be conducted in Committee. Will it be better if I submit them together?

The Chairman: The hon. Gentleman should not address that question to the occupant of the Chair in the House.

Mr. Smith: That is what I am doing, Sir Charles. I want to raise a number of points together, and to guide myself and other hon. Members on how to conduct ourselves when the different Clauses are put to us.

The Chairman: I gather that that ought not to be done at this stage of the Bill, but on the Third Reading.

Mr. Smith: I hesitate to differ from one so long-experienced. The Bill is being considered in Committee of the whole House. We are dealing with millions of pounds. I admit that I was very slow in letting Clause 1 go through, and I am

very critical of myself on that account. We have reached Clause 3 and I want to safeguard our rights in debate upon it. I therefore submit the following points for your consideration.
This Bill provides ways and means to supply grants for the financial year. It provides for increased grants to be made to the extent of £35¾ million. Does it not mean that, if we sanction this issue today we shall be entitled to consider it and ask how it is to be used and what it is intended to cover?

4.0 p.m.

The Financial Secretary to the Treasury (Mr. Henry Brooke): On a point of order, Sir Charles. I am in some difficulty, because I am in charge of the Bill. The matter to which the hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent, South (Mr. Ellis Smith) is now referring is dealt with in Clause 1 of the Bill, which I understood the Committee had already agreed to.

The Chairman: That is quite true. The hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent, South said that he had not been quick enough, but, in any case, if he refers to Erskine May, which he knows so well, he will see that it says:
On the clauses dealing with the issue of money from the Consolidated Fund, subjects involving expenditure cannot be discussed.

Mr. Ellis Smith: But the Bill deals with how men in the Services are to be allocated. I take it that we can discuss that? If you read further, Sir Charles, you will find that even the state of Europe has been discussed. Surely, if we could rove all over the world like that, we could discuss our own internal subjects?

The Chairman: I have Erskine May before me and I do not see that in page 725.

Mr. Smith: It is stated in Erskine May that at times the state of Europe had already been discussed. I hope that you will bear that in mind, Sir Charles. In addition, it states that while the debate will be restricted, and we cannot rove over the whole administration of the Army, at times the occupant of the Chair—

The Chairman: In what page is that?

Mr. Smith: I am rather handicapped. We find in Erskine May that a debate on the state of Europe had been allowed.


While, today, we do not want to raise questions of such a wide nature we do consider—

The Chairman: We are at cross-purposes. The point is that these matters cannot be discussed when we are in Committee on the Bill.

Mr. Smith: Surely, on each Clause, within limits, we can discuss what the Clause deals with, Sir Charles. I am not asking that there should be a wide debate, but that within the limits of each Clause we should be allowed a debate on the purpose for which that Clause is to be used. For example, when we reach the Schedules may I have a word or two on those, Sir Charles? Under the Schedules increased grants are to be made to various Services and those grants have not been discussed by the House. Surely when increased grants are to be allowed it should be legitimate to discuss what they are to be used for.
Another point is that, within limits, the Treasury has the right to vary what has already been debated, but even the Treasury has not the right to deal with financial matters in the way intended by this Bill. Later, I want to raise that question, because it is laid down very clearly in this most informative book that virement can only be used now by the Treasury within limits. Unless this Committee or the House is on its guard it would be possible for the Treasury to broaden those limits. In my view, according to the latest edition of Erskine May, it is very limited and this House should decide to what extent deficits or surpluses should be dealt with in the Schedules. I think we are dealing with a very important matter and establishing most serious precedents. In my view, we should take a stand on this matter. That is why I am raising it.

Mr. Brooke: I am, of course, anxious to help the hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent, South, but I must ask the Committee to observe that if it is allowed to be the practice to debate afresh on the Committee stage of the Consolidated Fund (Appropriation) Bill all the ground over which we have gone in Committee of Supply and subsequently on Report—

Mr. Smith: I intervene to assist the Financial Secretary. We are not suggesting that. If the right hon. Gentleman had

listened he would know that we are being very reasonable. We know the practice of the House sufficiently well not to make a suggestion of that kind. All we say is that, within limits, where increased financial grants have to be made before those grants are varied we should have the right to raise the point.

Mr. Brooke: I think that if the hon. Member had allowed me to finish my speech he would have found that I was about to say that, clearly, questions of financial procedure should be taken on the Committee stage of the Bill—

Mr. Sydney Silverman: On a point of order. May I ask what Question we are now debating, because the right hon. Gentleman referred to his speech?

The Chairman: We are now finding out how much can be discussed on the Question "That the Clause stand part of the Bill." My view is that nothing can be discussed on that Question, but others hold a contrary view.

Mr. Brooke: I would not seek to argue that questions of financial procedure which arise on a particular Clause of the Bill could not be debated, but I was given the impression by the hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent, South that he wished to examine a great many figures in the Schedules. Clearly, that would go beyond our scope.

Mr. Smith: I am sorry to speak again. I like the way in which you are dealing with the matter Sir Charles, but there is a great deal at stake in this and I should like you to give a Ruling.

The Chairman: My Ruling is that on the Committee stage we cannot discuss the Clause but that the Third Reading is the time at which to raise various points. The hon. Member will see, in page 725 of Erskine May:
According to present practice the committee stage of such a bill is formal and normally passes without debate.

Mr. Smith: What does "normally" mean?

The Chairman: It means generally speaking, practice.

Mr. Smith: Then it means that we are right because, if you will be good enough to look at the Bill, Sir Charles, you will


see that millions of pounds are to be paid which have not been sanctioned by this House. Therefore, as increased financial allocations are being made—as the Financial Secretary suggested—surely we have a right to discuss them in Committee. Once we have parted with the Bill in Committee we shall not have a right to discuss these matters, except within narrow limits. On Third Reading, Mr. Speaker will see to that—I am not being critical of Mr. Speaker. The limits will be very narrow, whereas in Committee there is a little relaxation.

The Chairman: The Chairman indicated dissent.

Mr. Smith: Well, within limits.

The Chairman: It will be exactly the same; it will not be wider.

Mr. Smith: In Committee, there is a little more latitude than on Third Reading.

Mr. M. Turner-Samuels: I am not taking sides, Sir Charles, but there seems to be an important element involved here. I understood you to say, Sir Charles, that, normally, the practice is that in Committee these matters are dealt with only formally. Does that necessarily mean that the practice is rigid, that there is no flexibility at all, and that, whatever the circumstances, it is only possible to take these matters formally? Subject to your decision on the matter, and with all deference to you, I should have thought that that would be rather a dangerous practice.
I can understand that, generally speaking, the normal circumstances may only require that the matter should be passed without debate, but surely there may be very grave occasions when this matter ought to be examined and more widely dealt with than by the narrow "yes" or "no" which the formal treatment would involve. Therefore, I should have thought that this question warrants more detailed consideration.
I can appreciate that the matters to which my hon. Friend has referred may contain among them items which could properly be dealt with summarily, in the manner to which you have alluded, but to cover that by saying that all matters at all times, of whatever they may consist, whatever their gravity and however much they ought to be examined, cannot

be examined because of some recognised practice, might appear to be stretching the matter beyond what it ought constitutionally to be.

The Chairman: I do not stretch the matters one way or contract them in another. I have to follow the practice of the House. That is what I am here to do. I still adhere to what I said. Clauses dealing with money in the Consolidated Fund (Appropriation) Bill cannot be discussed at this stage, and, in addition, the common practice is for the Committee stage to go through without debate. I cannot say more.

Mr. Turner-Samuels: It has been said that this matter can be discussed on the Third Reading, but is not that a question of scope? Might it not be impossible on Third Reading to bring in as widely as might be required such matters as those to which my hon. Friend has referred?

The Chairman: We have not yet reached the Third Reading, and when we do I may not be in the Chair, so that I cannot give a Ruling about a stage that we have not reached. I am dealing only with the Committee stage, and what I have said is quite clear. Although personally I would willingly let Members do what they like, I just cannot do it. That is my position.

Mr. James Simmons: Can you say, Sir Charles, what is the use of having a Committee stage if no discussion is allowed on the Committee stage? Why not cut out the Committee stage altogether? It has been said that there are precedents to be found in Erskine May for this procedure. Why cannot precedents be made now, if they have been made in the past?

The Chairman: We are guided in this House by what has happened in the past.

Mr. Simmons: But precedents have to be created first.

The Chairman: Yes, but they have been adopted after trial and error when they have been found to be the most satisfactory procedure.

Mr. Ellis Smith: I am trying to act on what has happened in the past. Erskine May states, in page 725:
The enacting words of the Bill are not open to amendment.


I am not pressing that. It goes on to say:
According to present practice the Committee stage of such a Bill is formal. …
If it was intended to apply to the whole of every Committee stage of every such Bill, the sentence would have finished there, but it goes on to say:
… and normally passes without debate.
This is not a normal Bill. Proof of that statement is contained in page 8 of the Bill. I am now trying to adduce evidence to convince you that this is not a normal Bill, Sir Charles. The Bill says:
… to meet expenditure beyond the sum already provided in the grants for Army Services for the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1956. …
That is only one example. If there are increased grants to be made, surely this is a matter for debate.

The Chairman: That matter has been agreed to in Committee of Supply.

Mr. Smith: Does that mean that all the proposals contained in this Bill have already been discussed?

The Chairman: Yes, certainly.

Mr. Smith: What about the variation which is proposed?

The Chairman: Is the hon. Gentleman referring to the Monk Resolutions?

Mr. Smith: Yes.

The Chairman: They were all agreed to by the House. We had a debate on them last week, I think.

Mr. Smith: If I remember correctly, the word that was used was "virement." Has the House been informed of the extent to which the Treasury has been carrying out the principle of virement? Has the House been informed of the full effects of that practice?

The Chairman: Yes, we had a debate on the Navy, Army and Air Force last week, I think.

Mr. Smith: That means that the House has been informed of all these transactions which have been carried out by the Treasury?

The Chairman: Certainly.

Question put and agreed to.

Clause ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clauses 4 to 7 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Schedules agreed to.

Bill reported, without Amendment.

Motion made, and Question proposed, That the Bill be now read the third time.

4.18 p.m.

Mr. Ellis Smith: I shall try to keep in order, Mr. Deputy-Speaker. I have the Bill before me and I shall endeavour to avoid creating difficulties, although, in my view, we are dealing with a very important matter. It is said in Erskine May that a debate on the state of Europe has been allowed, and if that is so, I am hoping that my observations will be strictly in order.
I find that this Bill provides for the Navy, the Army and the Air Force, for
grants towards services connected with Her Majesty's Foreign Service,
and
the salaries and expenses of the officers of the Committee of Privy Council for Trade.
It is on those matters that I want to speak in particular.
Before the war this House used to examine very minutely all the expenditure for which the Government were responsible. During the war that practice came to an end. We used to vote blank cheques. There was no interrogation. This House was responsible for the expenditure of millions of pounds. Let me make it quite clear that I am not complaining, and that I accept my share of responsibility. But I think that the time has arrived when there should be a tightening up. I think that during the past ten years we have been too lax about the large amount of expenditure for which we have been responsible.
That brings me to the Treasury's power of virement, and the expenditure to which that is applied. According to the Schedules, pages 16, 17 and 18, it evidently has been used to a very wide extent and, although I do not want to make too much of it today, I want to call the attention of the House to it in order to try to get it considered in the future. I want the House to consider whether, as we are voting these millions, the time has not arrived when the Treasury discretion in this matter should be more limited.
It is very limited when dealing with the social services, but it does not appear


to be when dealing with matters of this kind, and it is to this that I wish to draw the attention of the House. In regard to deficits and surpluses, in which the power of virement has been used, has the Treasury been kept fully informed in each case by the various Services? There are a number of services mentioned in the Schedules, and, before we part with this Third Reading, I want to ask whether the Army, Navy and Air Force, and other Government Departments, keep the Treasury informed as well as they should do, according to Erskine May and other publications designed to enable us to understand the procedure on voting credit and dealing with finance in the House.
I admit that I have not played the game with the Financial Secretary by giving him notice of this, because it was only this weekend that I thought about it, but, since doing so, it has quickened my interest, and that is the reason why I am raising it. If I cannot receive a reply now, I shall understand why not, but I shall have had the satisfaction of knowing that I raised the matter.
Our people are the most highly taxed in the world and it is time that this burden was eased. Further, our capital investment—we have had another shock today, and although I am not going to raise that matter, it emphasises what I am saying—is far too low. Our percentage of national income in capital investment is the lowest of the industrial countries. Our National Debt is the highest in the world. Our overhead charges on productive industry are far too high, and, therefore, when we are voting millions of the kind mentioned in this Bill, we ought to raise these matters so that we can quicken interest in these problems with a view to easing the burden on our people.
Many members of the Privy Council—I am including all parties now—have often spoken during the past 12 months, particularly in after-dinner speeches, about cutting down national expenditure. When is this to stop? Cuts have been announced today. This reminded me of the cuts announced in 1931. We are still suffering from those cuts, For example, there was a cut made in the proposed—

Mr. Speaker: I cannot quite follow 'how the hon. Member brings all this into the Bill. He knows the Ruling, as well

as I do, that only the sums which were voted as Supplementary Estimates are relevant to the Bill. It is not like the big Consolidated Fund Bill which comes at the end of the Session as a rule, and covers all Government Departments. That allows a very wide discussion. One has to stick, if I may use a common expression, to the Supply voted as Supplementary Estimates.

Mr. Smith: I appreciate that, and I shall respect it, Mr. Speaker. We have discussed this a fairly long time, and I am sure that all my hon. Friends present very much appreciate the way in which the occupant of the Chair during the Committee stage dealt with the matter; therefore, I can well understand your Ruling.
I shall content myself by saying again that we are voting millions of pounds. Our people have a colossal burden, one of the greatest in the world, which they are carrying, and it is time that this House examined more carefully all the expenditure which is being proposed. It is also time that we took advantage of our Parliamentary rights to raise these matters whenever that is in order, so that we may play our part in calling the attention of our people to the burden which we are carrying, and in trying to reduce national expenditure where possible.

4.28 p.m.

Lieut.-Colonel Marcus Lipton: My hon. Friend the Member for Stoke-on-Trent, South (Mr. Ellis Smith) was endeavouring, at an earlier stage of the Bill, to argue that there were various abnormal features about the Bill which he felt would justify a more extended discussion during the Committee stage than has, in fact, been found possible. It is unfortunate that the argument to establish abnormality on the Consolidated Fund (Appropriation) Bill has not been as fully discussed on the various stages of the Bill as it might have been.
It is a fact, of course, that detailed points were discussed in Committee of Supply when the Supplementary Estimates came before the House. My hon. Friend the Member for Fulham (Mr. M. Stewart) did, I think, establish that the Supplementary Estimates involved were unique and unprecedented. To that extent he felt obliged to make reference to various features of the Supplementary


Estimates now covered by the Consolidated Fund (Appropriation) Bill which, in his view, and, if I may say so with respect, in my view also, made them very unusual.
The point which he then made—and it was not challenged by the Secretary of State for War—was that we have maintained Armed Forces partly out of money not approved by Parliament but raised from occupied territories. When he made his very interesting disclosure, it was not challenged or queried in any way by the Secretary of State for War. To that extent, we are obliged to my hon. Friend the Member for Stoke-on-Trent for pointing out that the time has arrived to reestablish the rights of hon. Members to control expenditure when the Supplementary Estimates come before the Committee of Supply or, in the light of further information which may come to our knowledge, in Committee or on the Third Reading.

4.30 p.m.

Mr. Stephen Swingler: I should like to add my voice to that of my hon. Friend the Member for Stoke-on-Trent, South (Mr. Ellis Smith), because on many occasions in recent years I have protested in Estimates debates on precisely this point. The Schedules at the end of the Bill demonstrate a shocking laxity in administration and a disgraceful negligence by the House of certain aspects of public expenditure.
In Part I of Schedule (C) we see surpluses of estimated over actual gross expenditure of £15 million. In the next page the surplus is £43 million and in the next page £83 million. We have here examples of the House having been pursuaded to vote hundreds of millions of pounds which were not required and which eventually have been devoted to other purposes which have not been discussed by the House or by any Committee.
Those who have followed the course of expenditure on armaments and the Armed Services in the last few years, and the budgetary reports upon it, know that this kind of expenditure has got completely out of hand. Not only has it got out of the hands of Parliament, because nobody can claim any longer that Parliament has any effective control over this kind of expenditure; but it has also got

out of the control of the bureaucracy. Not even the bureaucrats know how many millions they require, or for what purposes.
One year they plan a defence programme of £4,700 million. The next year it turns out to have been £4,200 million. It is levered up and down according to the way in which the Estimate is changed. Never could there be better proof than in the Bill of the urgent need for a severe pruning of the defence Departments. Here is the overwhelming case for a violent cut in public expenditure on the defence Departments.
The Chancellor proposed today that such urgent needs as housing and educational building should be cut, but he said never a word about cutting the swollen expenditure on armaments and the Armed Services and never a word about stopping the Stock Exchange gambling in armaments shares.

Mr. Speaker: It seems to me that the hon. Member is now discussing defence expenditure in general and not the particular items which were passed by the Committee of Supply and discussed on Report. He must confine himself to those items. That is the rule.

Mr. Swingler: I am sorry if I stepped a little outside the limit for a moment, Sir.
I was coming to a conclusion and was merely seeking to emphasise that my hon. Friend the Member for Stoke-on-Trent, South has been right to draw the attention of a very thinly attended House—as it so often is thinly attended when we discuss these questions of expenditure—to the fact that here is an example of public expenditure which has become ever-increasing and for which no proper justification has been brought to the House. We have had no effective explanation of what we are doing, but any sensible person must be convinced that there is room here for tremendous economies by a Government determined to make them.

4.33 p.m.

Mr. Cyril Bence: I hope that during the few minutes I shall detain the House I shall manage to keep in order. When we were in Committee I was very disturbed because, although from time to time I have tried to get grants for various purposes and


have always been told that the Treasury was empty, I read in the Bill that the Departments of the Armed Services have had huge surpluses which the Treasury, by some mysterious manner, seemed to be able to transfer from one Service to another. When I tried to get a grant for a sewerage scheme at Kirkintilloch there was no money in the Treasury, but it seems that there was plenty of money in the Armed Services account which the Treasury could have taken back and sent to us in Scotland.
That is why I raise this point and support my hon. Friend the Member for Stoke-on-Trent, South (Mr. Ellis Smith) and others who are as concerned as I am with the fact that millions of pounds are floating around the defence Departments and, at a signal from the Treasury, can be transferred from one Department to another and manipulated among them, while local authorities and educational authorities, particularly in Scotland, find it very difficult to get any money from the Treasury at all.
I hope that periodically in the future—not merely once a year—figures will be made available to hon. Members showing how much the Departments of State have in the coffers over their estimated requirements. We are asked to vote annually huge sums of money to the War Office and to the Admiralty. We give it to them and then every year it seems that they have asked for more than they wanted. It is very difficult for local authorities to do this sort of thing; they always get less than they ask for. Ever since I have been a Member it has seemed that the defence Departments get more than they need.
I suppose that when the Estimates for next year are put in we shall find that there are increased demands, and no doubt this Bill next year will show this sort of thing again. The Departments always demand more than they need, even though they had more than they wanted the year before. When local authorities make demands they always get less year after year than they need—and now they will get less still.
It will be a shock to any local authority interested in education, the arts and the social services to find that the Services have had £200 million more than they needed. The money is floating around

amongst the generals, the admirals and the air marshals, and I suppose when we get the Army, Navy and Air Force Estimates next March they will ask for more than they asked for last year on the assumption that they will have millions with which to play. I think we should have an explanation of this state of affairs.

4.39 p.m.

Mr. Harold Davies: I will not detain the House for very long, but I want to put what I hope will be regarded as a point relevant to page 15 of the Bill. We see Appropriations-in-aid, £1,300,000, for the
supply, storage and distribution of petroleum products and certain other special services of the Ministry of Fuel and Power, including expenditure on Civil Defence and payments to recipients agreed with the United States Government of the sterling counterpart of dollars provided for the import of American coal.
Can the Minister give us a little more information about that? Does it take into account the fuel debate the other day when we saw that the exigencies of the present situation were such that we had to deal with the problem of financing the import of coal?
May I link that to points raised by my hon. Friends on pages 16, 17 and 18, where we see surpluses over gross expenditure by the Armed Forces of £15 million in one case, £43 million in another case and £83 million in the third case in a society which is the highest taxed per capita in the world. If that is taking place, then calculations are being made lazily or in a leisurely fashion by the so-called experts without giving the House the respect which it deserves in dealing with the expenditure of public money.
This is no frivolous debate. It is right that this House should be the guardian of the public purse, especially in view of the statement made by the Chancellor today. The Appropriation-in-Aid in Class IX of £1,300,000 to the Ministry of Fuel and Power will, we know, have to be increased. The Coal Board has done a first-class job. I do not resent it a bit—one must take one's turn in the House—but I failed to catch your eye in the debate last week, Mr. Speaker. I feel that I get as fair treatment from you as anyone else, and I do not resent that, but I should like to say that here is an example where we are paying millions of


pounds in interest, and we have a balance sheet from the Coal Board which is not really a true one.
Losses are attributed to the Board which are not losses at all. Here is an example where, if the Government want to apply a system of differential interests on capital expenditure, one could say "Why could not an organisation like the Coal Board, which is producing basic material for the good of the country, have a rate of interest which was very low or non-existent?" From military expenditure I could find £120 million or £130 million which could have been given to the Coal Board to improve standards of welfare of the miners, and so on.
I have been a critic of my own party as well as of the party which is now in power. The duty of a Member of Parliament, whatever his party, is to protect the taxpayer. The method followed in the Bill is a higgledy-piggledy way of bringing Estimates before the House. I warn the Minister that some of us, in the four years of what hon. Members opposite hope will be complacency, will be fighting harder than ever to protect the taxpayer from the kind of financing that we can expect in the future.

Mr. Ellis Smith: On a point of order. I know that I am not entitled to speak again, but I should like to quote for your consideration, Mr. Speaker, a passage from Erskine May. I do not expect a Ruling today, but I should like you to consider, for our future guidance, what is said in page 724:
Debate on Consolidated Fund Bill.
I will not read the whole of that, because it is not necessary, but it continues, after the word "founded":
In general terms, any questions of administrative policy may be raised which are implied in such grants of supply. Thus, whereas the field of debate on the main Consolidated Fund Bill … is normally commensurate with the whole range of administrative policy, debate upon a Consolidated Fund Bill introduced for the express purpose of providing funds for some newly undertaken service is limited to that service. Debate on these bills is thus limited to relevant questions of administration …
All that we have been trying to do today is to keep in order in accordance with that last sentence.

Mr. Speaker: I can answer the hon. Member straight away. If the hon. Gentleman studies again the passage which he has been good enough to read,

he will find that it is exactly what I said to him when he invited me to interrupt. This is one of the limited kind of Consolidated Fund Bills, a Consolidated Fund Bill which is founded upon a number of Supplementary Estimates. That restricts the scope of debate to that Supply. That was what I ventured to point out to the hon. Gentleman, exactly as it is stated.

Mr. Smith: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. We were handicapped because you were not in the Chair. We are trying to raise questions of administration within the amount set out in the Bill.

4.45 p.m.

Mr. H. Brooke: I should like to show courtesy to the House by replying briefly to what has been said, though there is other business to be completed today. I say at once on behalf of the Treasury that I warmly welcome the initiative of the hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent. South (Mr. Ellis Smith) in his scrutiny of the Bill and the figures it contains. So far as the Treasury is concerned, Parliament cannot interest itself too closely in public finance. It is not for me to hold myself up as a judge of the House in passing any comment on the hon. Gentleman's suggestion that, since the war, the House has not been scrutinising expenditure sufficiently closely.
Speaking as a Treasury Minister, I say that we have nothing that we desire to withhold from the House. I consider that the House and the Treasury, in alliance, can be the most valuable joint watchdog of all over the public Departments. The hon. Member inquired about the Treasury's exercise of its power of virement. He asked, in particular, whether the War Office, the Admiralty and the Air Ministry kept the Treasury fully informed. I can assure him that they do.
The procedure is, as he may know, that before the end of the financial year the Treasury has to lay a Treasury Minute saying that it will exercise this power given in Clause 4 of the Bill, and that later it must lay another Minute indicating in detail how the power has been exercised. That is examined by the Public Accounts Committee which then reports to the House. Then the Monk Resolutions are taken and they are, finally, enacted by this Bill.
That is what we are doing and, though it would be wrong of me to go over again


the ground covered in our debates on the Monk Resolutions, I can assure the hon. Gentleman that the way in which the Treasury exercises its power under Clause 4 of the Bill will be such as to satisfy him that money is not wasted; that powers of virement are not allowed to be exercised arbitrarily; and, finally, that the Treasury always takes great care —perhaps that was not appreciated by some hon. Members—to see that the provision of the Bill is observed that the aggregate expenditure of the Service Departments must not exceed the aggregate in their Estimates.
This power of virement is exercised within the Estimates and, on some occasions, substantial surpluses have emerged. Perhaps one or two hon. Members who spoke did not realise that Schedule (C) refers to the year 1953–54 and to events which took place two years ago. I hope that I may be forgiven if I do not go into detail there, because those matters have been taken in Committee and in the House and perhaps it would be wrong if I were to go over them again. I think that the House would be wise to criticise if the Treasury were allowed to exercise its power of virement to allow any surpluses on, let us say, the Navy Vote to be used for a sewerage scheme in Kirkintilloch. The hon. Member for Dunbartonshire, East (Mr. Bence) may pursue that idea, but I doubt whether he will get support from the Public Accounts Committee.

Mr. Bence: I would from Kirkintilloch.

Mr. Brooke: Finally, on the point raised by the hon. Member for Leek (Mr. Harold Davies) about the Supplementary Estimate in Class IX, I would say that that is a token Estimate for £10 only, that it was laid before the House long before the recent debate took place on coal, and that there is nothing in it which could have any effect on the policy debated last week.

Question put and agreed to.

Bill accordingly read the Third time and passed.

VALIDATION OF ELECTIONS' BILL

Considered in Committee, and reported without Amendment.

Motion made, and Question proposed, That the Bill be now read the Third time.

4.51 p.m.

Lieut.-Colonel Marcus Lipton: I shall not detain the House for very long, and I only do so because, when we were discussing this Bill on Second Reading, after I made some references to the work of the Select Committee, I was admonished by my right hon. Friend the Member for Bassetlaw (Mr. Bellenger) and my hon. Friend the Member for West Lothian (Mr. J. Taylor) for criticising the Committee.
I want to make it clear that the mere fact of this House appointing a Select Committee does not deprive this House of the right, if it so wishes, of making any comments it likes on the work of that Select Committee. My right hon. Friend the Member for Bassetlaw seemed to think that I was guilty of some blasphemy or sacrilege in criticising the work of the Select Committee, on the basis of whose Report this Bill now before us was framed. I think I am entitled to say that any hon. Member may criticise the work of any Select Committee if he thinks fit.

4.52 p.m.

Mr. Michael Stewart: It was not my good fortune to be present when my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Brixton (Lieut.-Colonel Lipton) made the speech on Second Reading to which he has just referred, and that was why he was not also criticised by myself for having made it. I entirely agree with him that it is still in the power of the House to make any criticism it wishes of the work of a Select Committee. I merely suggest that the work of the House itself is facilitated if criticisms are based on an appreciation of what the Select Committee was intended to do and what, in fact, it did. The criticisms of my hon. and gallant Friend on this occasion were not so based.
It was the purpose of this Select Committee, as we understood it, to ascertain whether the persons referred to in this Bill were holding offices of profit at the time


of their election, and, when it had ascertained that matter, also to decide whether it ought to make any recommendations to the House with regard to the validation of their election or indemnifying them against any penalties which they might have incurred. That was the purpose of the Select Committee, and I submit that it was important that it should fulfil that purpose as speedily as possible, because it would be most inconvenient to the hon. Members concerned and to the House itself if there were any unnecessary delay. Had that not been so, and had there been plenty of time, we should have been very happy to inquire into many other matters in which my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Brixton expressed interest.
There was the fascinating point which came up in evidence about the lunch between Mr. George and the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Works. I must confess, after what we have heard about that, that it seems to me that an invitation to luncheon from the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Works will be regarded with as much alarm in future as in the past was an invitation to take wine with Lucrezia Borgia.
All these matters, fascinating as they might have been, would not have helped the Select Committee to decide the questions which it was required by this House to decide, and I invite my hon. and gallant Friend to consider that if we had done those things which he regretted we had not done, we should, in fact, have come no nearer at all by a fraction of an inch towards deciding the question which this House asked us to decide, and we should not have obtained any more information that was in any way relevant to that purpose. I submit that we should not have done so. We should have been inflicting upon the gentlemen concerned and upon this House an unnecessary delay if we had adopted any of the advice which my hon. and gallant Friend wished to give us.
It seems to me, therefore, that the House may properly conclude that the Report of the Select Committee on which this Bill is based was a report of the kind which the House wished to have when it set up the Select Committee, and that we can, without hesitation, proceed with the Third Reading of the Bill.

4.57 p.m.

Mr. Charles Williams: I wish briefly to make two points. First, as far as the remarks of the hon. and gallant Member for Brixton (Lieut.-Colonel Lipton) are concerned, I wish to say that everyone in this House knows that if we appoint a Select Committee, it is open to any Members of Parliament to criticise its work, and it is also open to Parliament as a whole to accept or reject its recommendations. I accept the remarks of the hon. and gallant Gentleman on that matter in that spirit, and I only hope that as time goes on some of the wisdom of his hon. Friends who sat on the Select Committee may come to him in due course.
I would point out that the Select Committee was asked to do certain things. We found, first of all, that both elections were invalid, and, when we had done that, we had to make recommendations, if we so desired, and we did. We did so unanimously, and agreed that the two hon. Members should be indemnified, as is being done in this Bill, and we did it for this reason. There are three cases at this time, two of which we are dealing with here, and another one is to come. Some years ago, there were five cases, which were dealt with on almost exactly the same lines, and those constituted the precedents.
I should like to say that one point that has always puzzled me is how it happens that in this Bill we are dealing with two Conservative Members, supporters of the Government, and in 1946 we were dealing only with Socialist Members—supporters of the Labour Government of that time. How it happens that supporters of the Government are caught and have to be covered by Bills of this kind, while their opponents never do, I do not know.

4.59 p.m.

The Attorney-General (Sir Reginald Manningham-Buller): The debate on Third Reading has so far been confined almost entirely to the question whether criticisms of the work of the Select Committee were justified or not. I must say that it seemed to me, on reading the Report of the Select Committee, that it had fully inquired into all relevant matters.
I am sure the House is grateful to all Members of the Select Committee for the


expedition with which the Committee worked, and for the clarity and concise nature of its Report, which left very little room for argument as to any of the facts. There is only one correction that I should like to make. The hon. Member for Fulham (Mr. M. Stewart) referred in rather intriguing fashion to what he said was an invitation to luncheon by the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Works. I hope that no one will be discouraged from accepting any invitations which the Parliamentary Secretary may like to offer, though he has not so far offered one to me, nor did he offer one to Mr. George on that particular occasion.
There is one further matter that I should like to mention. In the Report of the Select Committee, mention was made of the desirability of Government Departments taking all possible steps within their power to help hon. Members to avoid getting into this kind of difficulty in the future. Of course, the difficulty arises in relation to those who are nominated to Parliament. Once they are elected, we must have a Bill of this kind. I should like to tell the House that the issue of a Treasury Circular to all Government Departments on the lines proposed by the Select Committee has been put in hand. I hope that that will, to some extent at least, reduce the risks to which all of us have been subject in the past, risks which, I hope, will be diminished, if not eliminated, when a Bill which is now before the House reaches the Statute Book.

Question put and agreed to.

Bill accordingly read the Third time and passed.

SUDAN (SPECIAL PAYMENTS) BILL

Order for Second Reading read.

5.1 p.m.

The Joint Under-Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs (Mr. R. H. Turton): I beg to move, That the Bill be now read a Second time.
It is almost two and a half years since the Agreement with the Egyptian Government was signed which provided for self-government, and ultimately for self-determination, for the Sudan. Since the signing of that Agreement events have moved swiftly. The first all-Sudanese Government have now been in office for eighteen months. Last November many hon. and right hon. Members from all sides of the House were able to welcome to this country the Sudanese Prime Minister and two of his colleagues. The majority of British officials have left, and the administration is now being run by the Sudanese.
It was feared, at one time that, as we handed over the power to the Sudan, ancient sectarian disputes between the Khatmia and the Ansar would flare up and make effective Government impossible. In fact, there has been only one regrettable incident. That was on 1st March last year, when riots in Khartoum caused the postponement of the opening of Parliament.
Things have gone so smoothly in the Sudan that the Sudanese have now reached the stage when they can exercise the right of self-determination afforded them by the Anglo-Egyptian Agreement. We are, at the present moment, discussing with the Egyptian Government the setting-up of an International Commission to supervise the process of self-determination. It is expected that next month the Sudanese Parliament will pass a resolution asking the Co-Domini to set the process in motion. Within three months of that date we and the Egyptians will have withdrawn our troops, and preparations should be well in hand for the election of a Constituent Assembly. That Assembly is to make the choice between union with Egypt and independence, and draw up a permanent Constitution for the Sudan consonant with that choice.
Seven years ago, when the Legislative Assembly was established, the picture was very different. At that time our relations with the Egyptian Government over the Sudan were far from good, and many of the Sudanese were distrustful and hostile. As hon. Members will realise, a transitional period of this sort imposes a great strain on all those responsible for the continuing good administration of the country, and especially upon the head of the Government. I am sure that the whole House is deeply grateful to the Governor-General and to all British officials in the Sudan for the signal services which they have rendered during this period.
As an essential preliminary to self-determination, the Anglo-Egyptian Agreement provided for the Sudanisation of the various branches of the Government machinery. This meant that no British or Egyptian official should retain a post which, in the judgment of the Sudanisation Committee set up under the Agreement, might be influential and prejudicial to the free and neutral atmosphere of the Sudan if it continued to be held by a British or Egyptian official at the time of self-determination. These posts included all appointments in the Sudan Defence Force, the police and the administration. Altogether, about 1,000 British officials will have left the Sudan by the end of this month.
The process of handing over to the Sudanese was one of considerable delicacy, especially in view of the little time in which it had to be accomplished. The Self-Government Statute which formed part of the Anglo-Egyptian Agreement, while removing many of the powers formerly exercised by the Governor-General, placed a considerable responsibility upon him for the efficient functioning of the Administration. Article 87 and paragraph 1 of Article 88 of the Statute gave him discretionary powers which he might exercise to ensure proper maintenance of the Public Service, it being his duty to see that all members of the Service received fair and equitable treatment.
Accordingly, in the light of the Sudanisation process to which I have referred, Sir Robert Howe, the Governor-General, took the lead in negotiating with the Sudan Government terms of compensation for expatriate officials whose careers

were to be brought to an end as a consequence of the Agreement. At that time—1st March last year—the situation was very delicate, and indeed the very security of the British officials was threatened. In these circumstances, the Governor-General gave the officials an immediate assurance that they would receive fair and equitable compensation. The outcome of the Governor-General's negotiations was that the Sudan Government agreed to make provision for the compensation of expatriate officials.
I have already mentioned that these officials lost their posts as the result of an Agreement to which the Sudan Government was not a party. The situation was, therefore, unique, and altogether distinct from that which has arisen, or may in future arise, when a Commonwealth or Colonial Territory achieves self-government. The Sudan Government, nevertheless, accepted as a proper burden on their own Exchequer the cost of compensating these officials for loss of career.
The scale of compensation, as laid down in the Sudan Expatriate Officials Compensation Ordinance, which came into effect on 17th July, 1954, whilst by no means ungenerous, did not quite come up to the level which Sir Robert Howe had described as fair and equitable in his assurance. In view of the special conditions at the time and the exceptional responsibilities of the Governor-General, Her Majesty's Government consider that we have a duty to honour the pledge which he then gave. We are, accordingly, setting aside a sum not exceeding £160,000 to meet this expenditure. This sum will be distributed amongst—it is estimated—some 270 officials who have been hardest hit by Sudanisation, because they were serving towards pension and would have expected, but for the provisions of our Agreement with Egypt, to have completed the full length of their service with the Sudan Government.
Most of the other officials whose posts were prematurely terminated were serving on short-term contracts or contracts of longer duration containing a clause awarding them a gratuity in the event of Sudanisation. By making these additional payments, we shall increase the maximum compensation payable by the Sudan Government to pensionable officials and women officials serving towards an annuity from £E8,000 to £E8,500. Calcu-


lations are at the rate of 97 and a half piastres to the £E.
The effect of the detailed provisions of Clause 1 (2) and (3) is that if an official qualifies for compensation under the terms of the Ordinance, he will qualify for the additional gratuity that is being paid by Her Majesty's Government. If he qualifies under the Ordinance, he will qualify under the terms proposed in the Bill.
During the whole of this difficult period, Sir Robert Howe was Governor-General of the Sudan. He was in a unique position in that he was serving two masters, Britain and Egypt—the Co-Domini—whose Governments, unhappily, did not always see eye to eye. It was for that reason essential that there should be no break during these years in the office of Governor-General of the Sudan. Had there been such a break, the whole outcome of history in this matter might have been very different.
When, for personal reasons, he finally resigned his post in January this year, Sir Robert had served in the Sudan for eight difficult years, far longer than seemed probable at the time of his appointment. In performing these exceptional duties, he has, in fact, lost money. Throughout this period he has had to deal with a variety of very special situations, and I think the House would agree that he did a very good job indeed. In particular, he was able to remove a considerable amount of Sudanese suspicion of our intentions and finally to win the confidence of all sides in the Sudan.
The sincere sorrow expressed at his departure in March by the Sudanese who had hoped that he would be able to stay amongst them until the Condominium came to an end, is another testimony to his achievement. In the light of all the special circumstances, I hope the House will agree that an additional pension of £250 per annum and an additional lump sum of £750 should be granted to him, as is proposed in the Bill.
I hope that after my explanation, it will be fairly easy to follow the Bill. Clause 1 provides for power for the Secretary of State to pay gratuities and sets the limit, which I have mentioned, of £160,000 and the limit to any particular recipient of £E8,500 from the two sources of the Sudan Ordinance and the Bill.
Clause 1 (2) and (3) set out the conditions which have to be met before payment can be made. I would call attention to the condition in subsection (2, d), which makes it necessary for a person to have served either in the Sudan or in Cairo as his last post. That excludes from the provisions of this Measure those officials who are serving in London. The reason for this exclusion is that they are receiving a separate scale of compensation under the Sudan Ordinance, and the pledge made by Sir Robert Howe was not intended to include those qualifying under that part of the Ordinance. Clause 2 deals with the payment to Sir Robert Howe. The remaining Clauses are entirely formal.
On 12th May, 1953, my right hon. Friend the Minister of Defence, speaking in the debate on the Sudan, said in the House:
I think they"—
meaning the British officials in the Sudan—
can count upon the support of all hon. Members in their endeavours to do their duty in these respects, and we intend to watch over their interests to see that they are fairly treated."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 12th May, 1953 Vol. 515, c. 1079.]
I submit that this Bill fulfils that pledge, and will provide fair treatment for these men who have served this country and the Sudan well.

5.16 p.m.

Sir Lynn Ungoed-Thomas: I should like to associate myself with what the Joint Under-Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs has said about the Sudan's progress towards self-determination. This is yet another country which, under British guidance, has arrived at a stage where it can determine for itself its own future. We must rejoice at the successful development of the policy which leads to this fruition, and we can all only hope and trust that the relations between the Sudan and this country will be as happy as those between this country and other countries which have also arrived at the stage of self-determination.
I should like also to associate myself with the Minister in his tribute to the officials. The development of the Sudan over generations past has been due mainly to the great work which has been done by the officials in that country.


They have had, particularly in recent years and months, an extremely difficult task when, of necessity, in a period of transition, there are bound to be strains and difficulties.
Quite clearly, we must see that those officials have fair and equitable compensation, and the Government, speaking on behalf of this country and this House, must honour the pledge which has been given to them. Therefore, I am certain that nobody on this side of the House will oppose a Bill which has such an admirable purpose. I should like to ask how far these proposals are acceptable to the officials, including those who are in London.
Now, I come to the provisions of the Bill. The Explanatory Memorandum appears to me to be anything but explanatory. It does not set before us why the Bill is necessary. I want to probe this matter a little further. There are two categories of provisions, first for officials in general, and secondly for the Governor-General. With regard to the officials generally, apart from the Governor-General, what is the basis of compensation? How has this figure been arrived at? How is it decided that it constitutes fair and equitable compensation?
The right hon. Gentleman has given some explanation of how the Government come into the matter of providing this compensation, but that is not primarily, of course, the responsibility of this country. I would refer the right hon. Gentleman to the answer which the Minister of State for Foreign Affairs gave to the hon. Gentleman the Member for Portsmouth, South (Sir J. Lucas) on 30th July, 1953. The hon. Gentleman asked the Secretary of State
if he can give an assurance that the pensions of British subjects employed or formerly employed by the Sudan Government will be safeguarded in any change-over that may take place.
The answer given by the Minister of State was:
The continued payment of the pensions of servants of the Sudan Government is a responsibility of the Government in the Sudan and its successors. Her Majesty's Government are naturally concerned to see that the constitutional changes which are to take place do not adversely affect the interests of pensioners, though I have no reason to believe that they will."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 30th July, 1953; Vol. 518, c. 214–5.]

The Government were being asked by an hon. Member of this House if they would see to the safeguarding of the pension rights of these officials, and the answer was that it was a responsibility of the Sudan Government and that it was the concern of Her Majesty's Government to see that the Sudan Government carried out that responsibility. Why now have Her Majesty's Government failed to see that the Sudan Government carried out their responsibility to provide these payments so as to constitute fair and equitable compensation? If that concern of Her Majesty's Government had been carried out there would have been no need for the Bill. What has happened is that the Government have fallen down in the negotiations and failed to see that the fair and equitable compensation is provided. They were in negotiations, and they had the opportunity to deal with this matter, and they have not provided for it.
The Governor-General apparently falls into a different category. I should certainly like to associate myself with the tribute paid by the right hon. Gentleman to the work which the Governor-General has done in the Sudan, and I am sure that no one would wish to be niggardly in dealing with the Governor-General. I was perturbed to hear that the Governor-General had been out of pocket as a result of performing these duties as Governor-General of the Sudan. It really is lamentable if officials of this country, carrying out duties for this country in the interests of this country, find themselves out of pocket in the process of doing so.

Mr. Turton: What I said was that the Governor-General had lost money by holding on for eight years—not that he was out of pocket in his post. If he had concluded his appointment after three years in the normal process he would be drawing higher salary or emoluments in another place.

Sir L. Ungoed-Thomas: I am obliged to the right hon. Gentleman. I see the point he makes, but it does not make the matter any better. If that is the position it means that we ought to be examining the provisions which are made for gentlemen in the Governor-General's position —if it is possible, at the request of the Government, for him to continue in any post and, if I may use the right hon. Gentleman's words, be "out of pocket"


in comparison with what he would have gained if he had gone to another post to which he normally would have been entitled and expected to go. If that is happening, or is apt to happen elsewhere, it is obviously a matter to consider, with a view to ensuring that that sort of occurrence does not recur.
I come to Clause 2 and the provisions there made for the Governor-General. I see that an amendment is involved of an Act of Parliament. Am I right in saying that this is being dealt with as a quite exceptional case of exceptional treatment, and that it does not apply to any other Governor-General? Obviously the House is bound to be a little reluctant to deal with a matter in this kind of way. I am sure that everybody, no matter on which side of the House he sits, is concerned about this.
There is an Act which, if I understand the matter correctly, provides scales of pay, and in this case we say that those scales are inadequate, and we have to make a retrospective amendment to do justice to the Governor-General concerned. It is a very undesirable method of proceeding, as I am sure the right hon. Gentleman himself will agree. I should like to know whether there is any provision to cover such cases generally. There should be some provision that can be generally applied, rather than that we should have to resort to a special retrospective amendment to do justice to one Governor-General in a particular case.
I understand, too—and I hope that the right hon. Gentleman will correct me if I am wrong—that the responsibility for the Governor-General's payment is different from that for all the other officials' payments. I am not quite certain whether that should be the responsibility of the Sudan Government, like that of the other officials' payments, or whether it is the responsibility—as I understand it is—of this country in any case.
Taking the Bill as a whole, of course we are in favour of it on principle, but I should appreciate it if the right hon. Gentleman would deal with the points which I have mentioned, particularly the extent to which the officials concerned are satisfied with the provisions of the Bill and the extent of the Government's failure to see that the Sudan Government shouldered the responsibility which the

Minister of State said was theirs and not ours.

5.28 p.m.

Sir David Campbell: I share with other hon. Members pleasure in seeing this Bill brought before the House. I join in the tributes paid by my right hon. Friend to the splendid work carried out in very difficult circumstances by the Sudan officers and by the Governor-General in particular. There is just one matter I want to mention, which has been briefly referred to already, and that is the case of the officials employed in London in the Sudan Agency.
I trust that my right hon. Friend will be prepared to reconsider their position and to include them in the provisions of the Bill. They are also covered by a Sudan Government ordinance which provides for the payment to them of compensation, either in the form of increased pension or in the form of gratuity. The additional compensation which they get is not so great as that which will be paid by the Sudan Government to officers who served in the Sudan and in Cairo.
I do not for a moment wish to query that decision. In view of the very special circumstances with which those officers were faced in the Sudan, I think that they deserve compensation over and above that paid to the officials in the London office. However, I submit that the officials in London are entitled to fair treatment.
My hon. Friend the Joint Under-Secretary of State said that the Bill covers only those in respect of whom the Governor-General gave a definite promise. I am personally unaware of the exact terms of that promise, but I thought that it referred to all the officials who are covered by the Sudan Government ordinance. That ordinance definitely lays down rates of compensation for the officials in London, and I believe it right and proper that we should examine the case of the London officials and see whether the compensation granted is adequate. If it is not adequate, which I believe to be the case, we should amend the Bill in Committee so as to include the officials of the Sudan Agency in London.

5.31 p.m.

Mr. A. Fenner Brockway: I am in the happy and rather unusual position of wishing to support a


Bill introduced in relation to the Continent of Africa. I join with others who have already spoken in tribute to the British Service in the Sudan. If the test of the British Service, whether under the Foreign Office, the Colonial Office or the Commonwealth Relations Office is to be the progress which is made towards self-government then the Foreign Office Service in the Sudan stands highest in the whole of Africa. Already, we have a Government there which is completely Sudanese, and next year we shall have a Government which has the right of full self-determination.
At the last Election, a party which supported some form of unification with Egypt had a majority. I think it very likely that when the moment comes for self-determination, the attitude of the Sudan will be in favour of independence rather than of unification with Egypt. I believe that the attitude of our Service has contributed considerably towards the degree of good will which exists there. I have been to the Sudan and have been tremendously impressed by the attitude of our Service there. The Sudan is probably the only territory in Africa where the schedule for the Africanisation of the service has been exceeded. The schemes for the Sudanisation of the service have gone forward more rapidly than they were scheduled to do. I know of no greater tribute that could paid to the service of any country than that it should proceed faster in handing over its duties to the people of the territory than has been the record in the Sudan.
In one sense, the people of the Sudan have been fortunate. They have had both the British and Egyptian Administrations competing for their support. Perhaps it is because there has been that degree of rivalry that progress in the Sudan has been greater than it otherwise would have been. I remember an amusing instance of that when I visited the headquarters of the trade union movement in the Sudan and, to my astonishment, found a large mansion being built for the trade union federation. I asked the trade union representatives how they could possibly afford such premises. They answered that it was easy. They had gone to the British and asked what contribution they were prepared to make towards the cost of the premises. The British had answered that they would give £1,500.
They thanked them for that donation and then went to the Egyptians and asked what contribution they would make. The Egyptians replied by asking what was the donation from the British. When they were told, they said, "We will give you £3,000." In that way the trade union movement was able to obtain the magnificent premises which stand in Omdurman. In that sense the Sudanese have been fortunate in having had a condominium representing two Governments in which there has been a certain rivalry for the good will of the people.
After recognising that, I want to pay my unqualified tribute to the ability and spirit with which the British Service in the Sudan has contributed towards the economic and political development of the country. If there have been any defects they have not been the defects of our Service. They have been the defects of our Government and Parliament here in Britain. Those defects are undoubted —the rather slow progress of education and the rather slow progress of the medical services.
One of the tributes that should be paid to our service in the Sudan is to the readiness of those concerned to work during the transitional period under Sudanese Ministers. I found the British medical officers there quite prepared to serve under a Sudanese Minister of Health. No one can speak of the Sudan without speaking particularly of the services given in connection with the Gezira scheme, the most inspiring economic enterprise in the whole Continent of Africa, by means of which the standard of life of the peasants has been lifted beyond recognition and their education and health developed. The whole House should pay tribute to our service in the Sudan for its contribution, politically and economically.
I want to emphasise the point which was made by the hon. Member for Belfast, South (Sir D. Campbell) and to ask whether we can have some clarification of the position of officials of the Sudan Government who have been working with the Sudan Agency in London. I did not altogether follow what the Minister said on that point. The Sudan officials of the Agency in London are subject to the Sudan Government's Expatriate Officials Compensation Ordinance. Is it equitable that they should be excluded from the provisions of the Bill? They are subject


in this country to our Income Tax while the Sudanese officials in Khartoum or Cairo are not so subject, and their compensation is less for a longer period of service than that of the officials in the Sudan and in Cairo.
I plead with the Minister that there should be some consideration of their exclusion from this Measure. It may be, as the hon. Member for Belfast, South has said, that they are not in exactly the same position as the officials who have been serving in the Sudan or in Egypt, but I suggest that when the House is acting with some justice towards our Service in the Sudan we should not forget the officials of the Sudan Agency who have served in London.

5.40 p.m.

Mr. Airey Neave: The officials who are mentioned in the Bill have given long and devoted service for the best part of their lives to the development of the Sudan. It must give very great satisfaction to the House that we are honouring our pledges to them in this matter of compensation. I remember that the Prime Minister, then Foreign Secretary, in 1953 described the Sudan Service as second to none in its integrity and its efficiency. I join in the very proper and worthy tribute which has been paid.
There are one or two matters to which to which I should like to draw the attention of my right hon. Friend. The first is this. Is he satisfied with the progress of the resettlement of these officials and of their re-employment through the resettlement bureau that has been established through his Department? A great many of those who have come from the Sudan are now seeking jobs. If there is anything he can say about the progress of that re-employment bureau, I should be grateful indeed.
The hon. Member for Eton and Slough (Mr. Fenner Brockway) mentioned that there were amongst those who had done magnificent service to the cause of the Sudan a number of other officials, and he cited in particular the Sudan Gezira scheme. That scheme is administered by the Sudan Gezira Board and now by the Sudan Government since the Sudanisation of those officials. In considering this Bill, it might be permissible for a

moment to consider the position of officials compensated by the Sudan Government, for example, through the Sudan Gezira Board and those governed by this Bill.
The maximum compensation allowed under the Gezira scheme is £9,000 (Egyptian) in comparison with E£8,500 maximum under the Bill. Under the Sudan Gezira Board scheme, however, the officials do not receive the same pension rights. The negotiations were based on a post-service benefit scheme for the older employees, but that was superseded. They do not get that benefit extra to the compensation which had been promised to them. The scheme has been amended in a way which to many of them seems rather unfair. In drawing this comparison, it may be that my right hon. Friend can say something as to whether he is satisfied that the same moral obligations are being carried out towards those officials as to those under the Bill.
I realise that this is a matter about which he may find some difficulty because of the position of the Sudan Government, but I am hoping he can say something to the House about it. As the hon. Member for Eton and Slough said, they are a worthy body of officials, and it is those who have had long service who are likely to suffer in comparison with the officials under the Bill. It is a little unfortunate that those who had such long service should have fallen between two stools, as it were, between the Sudan Gezira Board and our own Government, and may not have had fair and equitable treatment. My right hon. Friend may also feel some grounds for criticising the new scheme of the Sudan Gezira Board as now advanced.
I want to close by saying that the Government are to be congratulated in honouring their pledges and doing everything possible under the Bill for this magnificent body of men.

5.44 p.m.

Sir Patrick Spens: I have to apologise that I was not here when my right hon. Friend opened this debate. I want to make only one remark and to ask one question. When these Bills for compensation come along I always look to see whether or not the members of the judicial service are or are not included. It is quite clear that anybody who has been in the judicial


service ought not to be described as a former Government official or a former official of Parliament. I assume the members of the judicial service are not included in this Bill, but I ask the question and, if they are not included, then I should like to know what arrangements are being made for members of the judicial service.
I would remind the House that the members of the judicial service have been forgotten on other occasions when compensating arrangements have been made and special legislation has had to be introduced at a later stage to deal with that problem. I only hope that all members of the judicial body in the Sudan have been considered in these arrangements and that proper compensation or other forms of employment have been provided for them.

5.45 p.m.

Mr. Joseph Slater: A great tribute has been paid to the Civil Service staff who are now being compensated by the Government under the terms of their agreement whereby compensation ought to be paid for loss of earnings. On so many occasions in this House the Civil Service has been upbraided by hon. Members on both sides, so that when there comes a time to praise them it ought to be done, as it is being done today.
What concerns me is Clause 2, because I am not at all clear what it means. It says that £250 is to be paid to Sir Robert Howe and an additional allowance is to be given of £750. Could we know what the actual allowance is and what this will amount to through the increase of £750. According to everything that has been said, Sir Robert Howe was a good man in the position he held. Great tribute has been paid to him, and I am one of those who believe that compensation should be paid when people suffer loss of employment, whether in the higher Civil Service or in local government. All I should like to know is how these amounts involved in the total allowances were arrived at.

5.47 p.m.

Mr. Turton: With permission, I should like to try to answer the questions put to me by hon. and right hon. Gentlemen. The hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for Leicester, North-East (Sir L. Ungoed-Thomas), my hon. Friend the

Member for Belfast, South (Sir D. Campbell) and the hon. Member for Eton and Slough (Mr. Fenner Brockway) all asked me whether these provisions are accepted by the officials. The answer is that certainly all who are benefiting are satisfied with the provisions of this Bill.
It must be remembered what this Bill is doing: it is giving compensation for loss of future earning power to those who are Sudanised. As to the London office, I believe I am right in saying that nobody has been Sudanised. Their position is entirely different from those who left their homes to seek their careers in the Sudan, which have been cut short by Sudanisation. These have not left their homes; they are here and, if any are Sudanised, then they will get employment in this country. We are trying in this Bill to see that those who left this country and went abroad are fairly dealt with.

Mr. Fenner Brockway: If at a later stage members of the staff of the Sudan Agency are Sudanised, will they come under the terms of compensation in this Bill?

Mr. Turton: I thought I had made that quite clear. Those whose last post was not in the Sudan or in Cairo are excluded from this Bill, and I am trying to explain why we are doing that. It is because this Bill is compensation for Sudanisationnot pension—which means that men who left this country hoping to make a career in the Sudan and had it cut short are receiving compensation under the Bill. I submit to the House that it is quite wrong to mix up the position of those in the Sudan Agency in London, who in fact have been dealt with quite fairly, with those covered by this Bill.

Sir L. Ungoed-Thomas: One consideration advanced by the Minister for not giving compensation to the people in London was that they will get other employment here. Perhaps I am anticipating what he will say by asking this question: is the fact that other employment is provided for any of those who come within this Bill taken into consideration in deciding what compensation they will get under the Bill, or is it completely ignored?

Mr. Turton: It is completely ignored. As I see it, the position is entirely different. If an Englishman goes into another


country to work on a long-term contract and then suddenly, by an Anglo-Egyptian Agreement, we cut short his career, we have an obligation to see that he has fair and reasonable compensation for loss of office. The position of those in the Sudan Agency in London, who have done very valuable work, is that they are Englishmen living in London and working there. If they were Sudanised, it would be easier for them, without having to shift their homes, to get other employment.
What the hon. Member for Belfast, South did not understand, when I talked about the Sudan ordinance, was that it must be remembered that this Bill is implementing a definite promise given by Sir Robert Howe that certain expatriate officials should receive compensation up to a certain figure; and when the Sudan Government did not give that figure, Her Majesty's Government came in and honoured the pledge given by the Governor-General.
That deals with the second complaint of the hon. and learned Member for Leicester, North-East. The hon. and learned Member asked how this figure had been arrived at and he found the Explanatory Memorandum rather difficult to disentangle. Although I know that the hon. and learned Member is learned in the law, and is very able at disentangling legal conundrums, I assure him that had we put the whole of the Sudan ordinance, showing the tables and how the Sudan Government gave compensation, this Explanatory Memorandum would not consist of one half-page but of six or seven pages; and I am certain that hon. Members would have found it almost impossible to disentangle.
I have studied it, because I wished to understand the position. It is governed by the rate of salary on the date of termination, and that is multiplied by a factor extracted from a table showing the age of the man at the time of the ordinance. It would be a pity if we complicated this debate by going into that question, but there will be a topping-up from the £E8,000 maximum to £E8,500. The hon. and learned Member for Leicester, North-East asked why had the Government fallen down on their responsibility. I think that he was making a

slight mistake when he quoted a Parliamentary Question. If I am wrong, I hope that he will correct me, but I have been trying to trace the Question and I seem to remember that it was dealing with pensions.
We are not here dealing with pensions. The officials have their pensions and their pension position is preserved. We are now dealing with compensation by reason of Sudanisation, which is a different thing. We cannot interfere with a Government which has the power of self-government. As we did not think they had treated the officials completely fairly, we gave them this provision of a topping-up nature in the Bill.

Sir L. Ungoed-Thomas: Surely the Minister would agree that that would be a matter for negotiation when these matters were being considered, in exactly the same way as the pensions? Surely, it would be the responsibility of the Government employing them? Surely the same principle applies?

Mr. Turton: These people were not being employed by the British Government—

Sir L. Ungoed-Thomas: That is why it is a Sudanese responsibility.

Mr. Turton: It is between the Co-domini, represented by Sir Robert Howe and the self-governing Sudanese Government, not the British Government. We have come in as a result of Sudanisation. We do not wish to see these men suffer in any way.
I was asked about the payments to Sir Robert Howe. The hon. and learned Member for Leicester, North-East asked if this was an exceptional case. Certainly, this is a unique case. So far as I know there has been only one case of a Condominium, and that is why the position is so exceptional. We are not here amending any superannuation statute; we are merely reciting the fact that Sir Robert Howe is getting a certain annuity and a lump sum paymentunder the Superannuation Acts, which are at the rate worked out for those in the Civil Service who have his seniority. But because he lost some years' seniority in the Sudan, he has been given these amounts of £250 per annum and £750, so that he will not be at a considerable financial disadvantage. That is the answer to the hon. Member for Sedgefield (Mr. Slater).
However, he will not be at an advantage, and I wish to make that perfectly plain. That is no provision in any other Act of Parliament under which we could do this, and it was thought that the most tidy, honest and fair way was to come and ask the House to make this provision.
My hon. Friend the Member for Abingdon (Mr. Neave) asked about the Gezira Board. The officials were not employed by the Sudan Government. They were employed by the Gezira Board, which is something quite outside our purview, and we cannot interfere with that compensation figure. I have noticed the case, and I think that all will agree that the compensation afforded by the Gezira Board is fair and reasonable. I know there are certain people who feel that they have not been treated so fairly as the others. But it is a matter in which we cannot intervene. We have full sympathy with those who voice that complaint, but it is not a matter with which we can deal by an Act of Parliament.
My hon. and learned Friend the Member for Kensington, South (Sir P. Spend asked about judges. So far as I know, if there were a case of a judge being Sudanised, he would be covered by the provisions of this Bill. I think I am right in saying that the only judge who might possibly be affected is a New Zealander. Were he Sudanised, and if he qualified under these provisions, he would not be debarred by reason of being a judge. I think that the best way to put it.

Question put and agreed to.

Bill accordingly read a Second time.

Committed to a Committee of the whole House.—[Mr. Wills.]

Committee Tomorrow.

SUDAN (SPECIAL PAYMENTS) [MONEY]

Considered in Committee under Standing Order No. 84 (Money Committees).—[Queen's Recommendation signified.]

[Sir RHYS HOPKIN MORRIS in the Chair]

Resolved,
That, for the purposes of any Act of the present Session to provide for the payment of gratuities to or in respect of former officials of the Government or Parliament of the Sudan, it is expedient to authorise the payment out of moneys provided by Parliament of—

(a) any sums required for the payment of those gratuities, so, however, that—

(i) the said sums shall not in the aggregate exceed one hundred and sixty thousand pounds; and
(ii) in the case of any one person, the aggregate of any such gratuity paid to or in respect of him and any lump sum payment made to him by the Sudan Government by way of compensation for loss of career shall not exceed the equivalent of eight thousand five hundred Egyptian pounds, the pound sterling being taken to be the equivalent of ninety-seven and a half Egyptian piastres;
(b) the following increases, with effect from the sixteenth day of July, nineteen hundred and fifty-five, in the superannuation allowances which would otherwise be payable, or might otherwise be granted, under the Superannuation Acts, 1834 to 1950, and the Superannuation (Diplomatic Service) Act, 1929, to Sir Robert Howe, lately Governor-General of the Sudan, that is to say—

(i) an increase of two hundred and fifty pounds in the annual allowance; and
(ii) an increase of seven hundred and fifty pounds in the additional allowance.—[Mr. H. Brooke.]

Resolution to be reported Tomorrow.

ALIENS' EMPLOYMENT BILL

Considered in Committee.

[Sir RHYS HOPKIN MORRIS in the Chair]

Clause 1.—(PROVISION FOR CIVIL EMPLOYMENT OF ALIENS.)

6.0 p.m.

The Financial Secretary to the Treasury (Mr. Henry Brooke): I beg to move, in page 1, line 7, to leave out "a" and insert "any."
As the Committee will appreciate, this is merely a verbal Amendment. The word "any" might make the line read slightly more clearly.

Amendment agreed to.

Mr. Brooke: I beg to move, in page 1, line 13, at the end to insert "or."
This is very little more than a drafting Amendment. It puts beyond doubt the fact that paragraphs (a) and (b) are alternatives. On Second Reading, the right hon. Member for Colne Valley (Mr. Glenvil Hall) asked about the precise scope of the two paragraphs. I then gave him the correct answer, but it has since occurred to me that it would be better and clearer to insert the word "or" and so put beyond doubt that it is not proposed to certify under paragraph (b) a particular alien for appointment to a particular job overseas which the Minister did not consider to be of a class or description generally appropriate for the employment of aliens.
Paragraph (a) will be used for those cases where the service is of a class or description generally appropriate for the employment of aliens. Paragraph (c) will be used for the appointment of aliens to particular posts in this country under the other provisions of the Bill. I hope that the right hon. Member for Colne Valley will feel that, thanks to himself, I am making this Amendment and thus improving the Bill.

Mr. Glenvil Hall: We are much obliged to the right hon. Gentleman for this Amendment, although I must admit that I am not so certain as he appears to be that it entirely clears up the ambiguity. He is, of course, quite correct in saying that on Second Reading I ventured to ask him whether subsection (1, b) meant that a person to whom a certificate

has been issued could be employed abroad as well as at home. I rather gathered from the right hon. Gentleman's reply then that that might be possible. I am not certain whether, under the Amendment—that is, with the inclusion of the word "or"—a person who may be employed at home under a certificate must now continue to be so employed and cannot be sent abroad.
It seems to me that some of the people whom we visualise as being employed under paragraph (b), that is, alien technicians and scientists, might possibly have to be sent abroad. For example, I can visualise—although one does not like to think of it—such an individual being sent to, say, Australia to assist either in research work on the hydrogen bomb or for the purpose of being present in that country while one is exploded. I gather that if what the right hon. Gentleman now says is correct, the certificate of such a man might not carry him that far.
On the other hand, it may be that I am too pedantic in looking for flaws in this Amendment and am looking a gift horse unfairly in the mouth. It is probably a fairly small point and I do not want to labour it, but I should be glad if, between now and when the Bill appears in another place, the right hon. Gentleman would make quite certain that if an ambiguity does exist it shall be cleared up.

Mr. H. Brooke: I can assure the right hon. Gentleman that if my Amendment is accepted there will be nothing to prevent an alien who has been appointed under a certificate in this country taking up a post abroad.

Amendment agreed to.

Motion made, and Question proposed, That the Clause, as amended, stand part of the Bill.

Dr. Barnett Stross: I wish to ask the right hon. Gentleman a question with reference to subsection (3), which states:
A certificate under this section shall cease to have effect, unless previously revoked, at the expiration of a period of five years from the date on which it is issued, but without prejudice to the power of the responsible Minister to issue a fresh certificate.
Is it necessary to place this double load upon the person concerned? We would, naturally, agree that it must always be possible for the responsible Minister to


revoke a certificate, but if that power is available, as we feel it must be, why then should there be a further five-year limit? Will the right hon. Gentleman consider amending the Clause so that the five-year limit is left out which would, I think, leave quite sufficient power to the Minister?

Mr. Glenvil Hall: I am a little puzzled, Sir Rhys, by the fact that there are certain Amendments on the Order Paper which you have not thought fit to call. Of course, it is not for me to question your Ruling, but, as I read and understand them, what the Minister has tried to do in them is to put beyond any shadow of doubt the position of a British protected person.
As I read the interpretation of a British protected person in the British Nationality Act, 1948, it seems that the words used in the Bill completely cover a British protected person. However, as some of this Bill stems back to an Act of 1701—and as we know that under an Act of the Queen who came to the Throne in 1702 a good deal of ambiguity has arisen in another direction—it might well be that certain ambiguities may also arise over the Act of Settlement, 1701. Will the right hon. Gentleman reconsider this matter? Does he think that it might still be useful to clarify the definition of a British protected person in the Bill in any way, possibly when the Bill reaches another place?

Mr. H. Brooke: It is not possible for me to say what will be done with the Bill when it reaches another place, but there may be noble Lords who are anxious to investigate further the matter which the right hon. Gentleman has just mentioned.
I apologise to the Committee for the appearance upon the Order Paper of some Government Amendments which have not been called. In those Amendments I was seeking to put beyond all doubt whatever a matter upon which the right hon. Member would support me, namely, that British protected persons should be treated as they always have been treated, in exactly the same way as British citizens, for purposes of employment in a civil capacity under the Crown. It has never been challenged that that is the position, but it struck me that it might be a good thing to seek to amend the Bill so as to make it clear beyond all doubt that that

was the will of Parliament. The Amendments have been ruled out of order, however, and for that reason I suggest that we cannot pursue the matter further here. It is very satisfactory to know that both sides of the Committee are at one in wishing the present state of affairs—which has long continued—to remain.
The hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent, Central (Dr. Stross) asked whether it was really necessary to place a double load upon an alien who might be the bearer of one of these certificates. The point which he raises was implicit in an Amendment in the name of his hon. Friend the Member for Bristol, South-East (Mr. Benn) which was not moved. I should like to say a word or two about this matter, because it is an important point, which was raised during the Second Reading debate. Under the Bill a certificate, once given, can be revoked at any time. I would add that I have further examined the question whether power of revocation does exist—which was queried during the Second Reading debate—and I am quite satisfied that it does. Under the Bill the certificate, unless revoked, will last for five years, and will then come up for consideration and will be capable of revocation.
A suggestion has been made that this five-year period should be removed and that anybody who is given a certificate should hold it for an indefinite period unless it is revoked. I submit to the Committee, as I did to the House during the Second Reading debate, that upon general policy grounds it is desirable to have a reasonably close measure of control, not only over the employment of individual aliens but over the total employment of aliens in Crown service at home. As I then explained, we have now grown accustomed to full employment, but there might be some future occasion—although we all pray that there will not—when unemployment reappears. Then it would be very easy for a public outcry to spring up against any aliens employed in Government Service, upon the ground that they were taking positions which might otherwise be held by British subjects.
6.15 p.m.
The arrangements provided in the Bill will ensure that cases will constantly be coming up for consideration and renewal, and each of those cases will be examined upon its merits in the prevailing


circumstances. I am inclined to think that this will be better not only from the public point of view but also from the aliens' point of view, because we should all desire to guard against a situation arising in which public clamour almost forced a Government into the widespread revocation of certificates. In such a situation, if there were considerable unemployment among British citizens, the Government of the day would clearly need to examine carefully whether they should renew the certificates coming up for renewal under this system from day to day.
In that way the alien himself would not have a double load imposed upon him—as the hon. Member suggested—but might be given a certain amount of assurance and an additional feeling of protection, because he would know that unless his certificate was revoked for some specific reason, it would not be likely that the Government would be forced into a position of suddenly reviewing the whole aggregate of certificates. Instead, as I have said, they would take their decisions upon the certificates which were coming to the end of their five-year period.
We are all talking about hypothetical conditions, but during an earlier stage of the Bill I remember that the right hon. Member for South Shields (Mr. Ede), who has great experience in these matters from his time in the Home Office, was inclined to agree with the Government that it is wise to look forward to hypothetical situations where there might be feeling against aliens. For those reasons the Bill

is drafted as it is, and I recommend the Committee to accept the Clause in its present form.

Mr. Glenvil Hall: The explanation which the right hon. Gentleman has given us is a very reasonable one. It was canvassed during the Second Reading debate, when my right hon. Friend the Member for South Shields (Mr. Ede) put up what I thought was a very substantial case in favour of retaining the present provision in the Bill. After all, Members of Parliament have to get their certificates renewed at least once every five years, and it ought not to be too much to ask an alien who continues as an alien and does not seek naturalisation, to do the same.
The provision also has the further advantage that it permits the authorities to know exactly who and where aliens are, and to keep track of them. Anything could happen to them if no certificate were required, or certificates ran on indefinitely to the end of time. I think that I carry my hon. Friends on this side of the Committee with me in this matter. We should not dream of voting against the Clause on this point and we, I think generally, accept the explanation which the right hon. Gentleman has given us.

Question put and agreed to.

Clause, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clauses 2 and 3 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Bill reported, with Amendments; as amended, considered; read the Third time and passed.

FISHING INDUSTRY (SUBSIDY AND GRANTS)

6.20 p.m.

The Joint Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (Mr. G. R. H. Nugent): I beg to move,
That the White Fish Subsidy (United Kingdom) Scheme, 1955, a copy of which was laid before this House on 12th July, be approved.
This Scheme is exactly the same as the previous Scheme, which runs out at the end of this month. It has a duration until 31st December this year.
It has been found impossible to prepare a scheme to take account of the recent coal price increase and to bring it before the House before the Recess. The business of considering just how to deal with these substantial price increases, to draft the necessary Statutory Instrument, and to have the fairly lengthy consultations we usually have with the industry before we bring a Scheme before the House, has been physically impossible in the limited time.
We have, therefore, taken the only alternative of bringing before the House a scheme to renew the present one. We have already undertaken to bring another scheme before the House after the Recess, when we will take account of the coal prices increase and of any other changes that have taken place in the industry in the past twelve months. In the meantime, the House will probably be interested to have a very brief account of how the scheme has worked during the past year.
A year ago we made an amendment to the subsidy scheme and added approximately £250,000 to the total possible charge on the Exchequer. That brought the total possible charge on the Exchequer up to £2½ million. I recollect that some hon. Members felt doubt whether that would be sufficient to keep the industry going in a reasonable way for the twelve months. I am glad to be able to say that in the out-turn the industry has done even better than we expected and that the total charge on the Exchequer for the past twelve months is estimated to run out at about £2·13 million, which is significantly less than we expected.
The main item of charge which varies here, apart from stowage charges, is the voyage-payment subsidy, which is a sort of insurance payment which ensures that vessels which go to sea will not earn less than a certain sum. It works on a sliding scale, so that for a better catch on the part of a particular vessel a lower amount is paid, and when the vessel does well nothing is paid at all. The substantially lower charge on the Exchequer is due to the fact that we had rather lower voyage-payments than were expected. That is a reliable sign that the near and middle-water vessels have done better, and is distinctly encouraging.
I am told that the general trend has been very much on the lines of what we hoped for—apart from the recent coal price increases—when we put the 1953 Act on the Statute Book. Hon. Members will recollect that the subsidy was temporary, to keep the industry going over the few years necessary for the rebuilding of the old and out-dated fleet. We combined that with a loan scheme which would help the industry to bring about that rebuilding. Before the recent increases in costs there seemed to be a reasonable prospect that we were moving in the direction we wanted. It is too early to see the practical and economic results of the fishery conservation methods that have been followed so successfully in the past eighteen months, but we may hope to see results beginning in the next year or so.
The fund that will be made available under the 1953 Act totals £7½ million, with an additional £2½ million that can be approved by affirmative Resolution. Up to 31st May this year we had spent just over £4 million. That indicates, considering the balance that is to last us over the next two and three quarter years before the Act runs out in March, 1958, that, if this section of the industry is to fulfil the wishes and the hopes of Parliament to be independent of Government subsidy by then, there is still some way for it to go.
Our hope that we would be replacing the old, ageing and uneconomical fleet with sound economical and new vessels seems to have a prospect of being fulfilled. It is early days for us to say with certainty how the new vessels are doing because most of them have only been in operation for a few months, or at the


most a year or so. Such returns as we have had indicate that these new vessels, which are mostly diesel-engined, have a greatly increased catching capacity with a lower run of costs, and there is every prospect that they will be a profitable proposition for owners, skippers and crews.
Despite all the difficulties, we have very much in mind the problem of dealing with the increased coal costs. The new vessels, which are either oil-burning or diesel-engined vessels, seem to have a prospect of being able to assure to us a good fish supply at reasonable prices, and to owners, skippers and crews a reasonable living and a reasonable measure of comfort in the hazardous calling they follow for the benefit of us all. Despite anxieties on the horizon, there are great hopes. I therefore feel pleasure in commending this Scheme to the House.

6.28 p.m.

Mr. Edward Evans: I rise on behalf of my hon. and right hon. Friends to support the Motion. I am happy to be able to congratulate the Government on following so assiduously the pattern of the schemes laid own by the Labour Government when they introduced these subsidies, which have a most beneficial effect on near-shore and inshore fishing. My own port of Lowestoft, which several hon. Members recognise as the premier fishing port, at any rate in regard to quality, has benefited by more than £600,000. That has had a great effect in revitalising the port and giving it a character which is unique, while providing all housewives with prime fish at a reasonable price.
We were favoured with a Scheme about a year ago. I went very carefully into it and compared it with the present Scheme. So far as I can make out there is not the slightest difference between them, except in the date. I noticed from the Minister's statement that the present Scheme will operate only until the end of 1955. I thought it was a characteristic piece of timidity by the Tory Party, which could not see any further than the end of the year. I am satisfied, after the Minister's explanation, that this Scheme is a generous gesture to meet the rising cost of coal, which will hit the middle-water and near-water fishing very badly indeed.
Although there has been a great conversion from steam to diesel engines in the case of trawlers and drifter trawlers, the fact remains that the majority of vessels fishing in the near and middle waters are motivated by steam. I have figures which show that the increased price of coal will be a very heavy burden indeed on some of the smaller men. It is true that the big firms with a mixed fleet will divide their costs accordingly, but there is a danger that small people—and I should like to say more on that when we come to the two succeeding schemes—with a long tradition of service in this business, may be crowded out by the bigger enterprises. In this modern age that may be inevitable, but I am sure that most hon. Members who know anything about the sea, or who have contacts with it, will regret that tendency. Unless measures are taken to alleviate the distress that is bound to be caused to the trawler fleet by the increased price of coal, there will be very disastrous consequences on vessels leaving the port of Lowestoft.
You may recall, Mr. Speaker, that this afternoon I failed lamentably to get round your Ruling when I tried to raise, during Question time, the matter of the provision of relief for the drifter fleet. We were very encouraged the other day to hear the Joint Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food tell us that these new grants were to operate in respect of white fish, and I put down a Question to him as to what was to happen to the herring fishers. Before the House rises on Thursday, I hope that we shall have a statement to satisfy our friends in the herring industry, because—more so than the trawler fleet—the herring drifters depend on steam—certainly those operating on the East Coast.
The subsidies that have been worked out by the Government are on precisely the same level as those in the preceding Scheme—1024, I think. I have meticulously compared them. The Minister's explanation has been that the Government are, quite properly, to bring a new Scheme before the House at the end of the year which will take account of the increased cost of coal, but there are other costs which are rising also. In the whole range of fishing, I know of no item that has decreased in price during the last 12 months. If there is one, I should be glad to hear of it. If these fleets are to


operate "in the clear," as we say, without running very badly into the red, we must have regard not only to the increased price of coal but of almost every other commodity the fisherman uses.
We must remember, too, that though the oil companies can pass on increased costs to the catcher, the catcher is in a very highly competitive market and cannot pass on that increased cost to the consumer. In fact, one of the gravest anxieties of the industry in the disposal of both herring and of white fish is how to maintain the markets so that they operate to give a fair return—and that is the whole object of the subsidy. That is why we have a subsidy.
Between now and when next the Minister is proposing to present a Scheme to the House, I hope that he will have regard to all the increased costs of commodities and also to the return to the actual working fishermen. It was interesting to note that the subsidy, which is of great value to our working fishermen, is to be maintained at least until the whole fleet has been converted—so far as I understood the hon. Gentleman—to oil-burning vessels. But I warn the Government that the fact that a vessel is burning oil does not mean that it is working at a profit. All these considerations must be borne in mind, but I think there is enough money in the kitty to last four years, and no doubt by then the complexion of the benches opposite will have changed considerably—and materially for the better. At least we hope so.
We on this side would not wish to embarrass the Government by dividing against them on this occasion. We have our cohorts elsewhere and could muster them if the necessity arose. It will not arise in this case, so I have pleasure in supporting the Scheme moved by the hon. Gentleman.

6.36 p.m.

Mr. Douglas Marshall: Except for one or two of the more colourful passages, I agree with what the hon. Member for Lowestoft (Mr. Edward Evans) has said. The first of the two points I wish to make relates to paragraph 15 and to paragraph 17 (a), which refer to the skinning of dogfish. From time to time I have referred to the fact that in other seas dogfish find their way into cans under other names which the Minister of Food has always refused to recognise with our dogfish. As the

Minister of Agriculture now also holds the office of Minister of Food, I should like him to look at that again.
With reference to what the hon. Member for Lowestoft said about the quality of Lowestoft fish, I am quite sure that he may be right, but there are other ports that have fish of equal quality, and as he has mentioned the support given to the industry by the Socialist Government, I would remind him and the House that that Government at that time recognised that the pilchard had the highest protein value of all white fish.

6.38 p.m.

Mr. J. Grimond: Like the hon. Member for Bodmin (Mr. D. Marshall), I believe that we miss a very considerable source of income from dogfish. I would urge the Minister to see if we cannot make money out of it as do other countries. I, too, was astonished to hear the hon. Member for Lowestoft (Mr. Edward Evans) say that Lowestoft fish was the best for quality. I have never heard of such a suggestion. It is notorious that the best fish come from the North of Scotland, and all connoisseurs are agreed that the very best comes from Shetland. I take it that that is accepted.
Turning to costs, I agree that there is a danger that the very steep increase in the price of coal may obscure the general increases in costs which all fishermen now have to face. I know that this is a temporary scheme, but I hope that before parting with it we shall have an assurance that the general scale of costs will be taken into account before a new scheme is put forward. In the North of Scotland we face peculiar difficulties which I shall not now go into—they are well known to the Scottish Office—and I am sure that the Minister will agree that there are many costs which take away from the profits of the industry. Suggestions have been made that some boats—in the white fish industry mainly—are making good profits, but I do not think those suggestions take full account of the increased costs, the risks and the lean years. In any case, I know of no industry where those engaged in it have to give harder work to get their returns.

6.40 p.m.

Mr. G. R. Howard: As I understand it, the Minister is going to bring in another Measure at the end of the year. When he does so, I hope that


what has been said about costs will be borne in mind and that he will not close his mind to the wishes of the shell fishermen. I know that I have pressed this matter over and over again, and some people may take the view that this is a luxury form of fish. But so is the turbot and the sole, and they get a subsidy while the shell fishermen do not get a subsidy. Yet they have the same costs to bear.

6.41 p.m.

Mr. Hector Hughes: I want to do what is unusual for me—to make a non-controversial speech. I want to say a word in praise of the White Fish Authority and of this Statutory Instrument, because they both do very good work.
This Scheme, which very properly comes before the House, is a product of that series of statutes which were begun by the Labour Government and which have been continued ever since. Under them the White Fish Authority has been doing excellent work for the fishing industry, which is diverse and complicated and needs the assistance of a body such as the Authority. I was a member of the committee which considered the first of these Acts, and I remember that the committee was anxious about the powers that were being given to the White Fish Authority and the amount of money which was being placed at its disposal, but it is only fair to say that the Authority has justified the powers which were given to it and has spent well the money that was placed at its disposal.
Looking back on years of experience, I go further and say that the scope, powers and finances of the White Fish Authority should be greatly extended to enable it to cope with and solve the many problems which confront the fishing industry today. I shall name some of the things that the White Fish Authority has done and might do in a more extensive way if it had more power and more money. It is common knowledge that we need more and better fishing fleets to enable Britain to compete with foreign fishing fleets. Old fleets are very much in need of renovation, extension and modernisation—

Mr. Speaker: I think the hon. and learned Member is now referring to the next Scheme, dealing with grants for fishing vessels and engines.

Mr. Hughes: The object of this Statutory Instrument, Mr. Speaker, if I may mention the Explanatory Note at the end, is to provide
a scheme … of grants to persons engaged or proposing to become engaged in the white fish industry in respect of expenditure incurred in the acquisition of new fishing vessels and engines.

Mr. Speaker: That confirms me in my suspicion. The hon. and learned Member is now dealing with the second Scheme on the Order Paper, and not the first.

Mr. Hughes: I was under the impression that we were taking the first two Schemes together, Sir.

Mr. Speaker: No. I understand that there is a suggestion—and if the House agrees to it I am prepared to fall in with the suggestion—that the second and third Schemes should be taken together, but the first is entirely distinct. In those circumstances, would the hon. and learned Member prefer to preserve his speech until we come to the second Scheme?

Mr. Hughes: I understood that we were taking the White Fish Industry (Grants for Fishing Vessels and Engines) Scheme, 1955.

Mr. Speaker: No, that is not before the House yet. The one which is before the House is The White Fish Subsidy (United Kingdom) Scheme, 1955. The hon. and learned Member has got hold of the wrong one.

Mr. Hughes: Perhaps when the other Scheme comes before the House I may be fortunate enough to catch your eye then, Mr. Speaker?

Mr. Speaker: I think that would be the most convenient course.

6.45 p.m.

Mr. W. S. Duthie: I should like to make a few remarks on the effect of this Scheme on inshore fishing, the type of fishing which I have the honour to represent in this House. I must say at the outset that I deplore the parochialism which has been in evidence in the speeches of my hon. Friend the Member for Bodmin (Mr. D. Marshall) and of the hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr. Grimond). Everyone knows that not only does the best fish in our home waters but, indeed, the best fish in the world come


from the Moray Firth. That is a statement that has stood unchallenged for generations.

Mr. Anthony Fell: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. Is it not true that this Scheme considers all fish to be equal?

Mr. Speaker: I do not know about that. What I do know is that that is not a point of order.

Mr. Duthie: I welcome this Scheme with some reservations. The fact that inshore fishing is successful today is due entirely to the beneficial circumstances of having had very good catches in recent years. But there is one factor to be borne in mind, and this is a point which was raised by the hon. Member for Lowestoft (Mr. Edward Evans), with which I agree entirely. The costs are mounting all the time, and in many cases the members of a boat's crew may be getting £10 a week while the owner fisherman or fishermen—for these inshore vessels are all operated by the owners—may be losing money on account of mounting costs.
I should have liked to see a more generous view taken of these costs in perhaps upgrading the subsidy. The owner has to find the gear, and he may lose his nets and ropes which are very costly indeed. His crew may be earning quite a good wage while he may be going astern.
I think there is room for experiment. Vessels over 70 ft. long obtain a lump sum daily in respect of subsidy. It would be much better for the country—and here I have the support of many practical fishermen—if the subsidy were made the same all round. It would be better for the industry as a whole if this discrimination were removed and if a flat rate per stone were allowed for fish that had been landed.
While I support the hon. and learned Member for Aberdeen, North (Mr. Hector Hughes) in his encomium of the White Fish Authority, I feel that there is still a great deal for the Authority to do. There are far too many cases where too much fish remains unsold at the quayside. Co-ordination on the part of the officers of the White Fish Authority might rid us of that nuisance and disability. In the nature of things, the White Fish Authority should be au fait with the conditions of

markets throughout the country and should be able to have unsold fish channelled through the various points where it will obtain a remunerative price.
Generally speaking, I think that this Scheme is a good one. So long as the present catches are maintained it is adequate, but it is only just adequate to provide the necessary assistance for inshore fishermen. I hope that if there is any falling off in catching generally the Government will at once appreciate the situation and ask permission from the House to increase the subsidy.

6.49 p.m.

Mr. Cyril Osborne: I represent a third of the old Grimsby Parliamentary division and, therefore, I have an interest in this Scheme. I should like to ask my hon. Friend one or two questions that may not sound so pleasant to his ears as some of the things that he has heard before. First, I think he said that the general subsidy would come to an end about 1958. As a general principle, I dislike subsidies because they tend to hide the real economic position both of the producer and the consumer.
Subsidies are like drugs: the more one has them, the more one has to have them. I am always glad to hear that subsidies are likely to come to an end, but if there are subsidies going, then, like other hon. Members, I want to put out my hands and see what I can get for my constituents. Although I say that, I still think that in principle subsidies are bad.

Mr. Edward Evans: Does the hon. Member apply that to agriculture?

Mr. Osborne: They are not subsidies. If agriculturists were allowed to sell food at low prices—[Interruption.] However, I shall not pursue that matter because it would be out of order, but I would be prepared to do so. I should like to ask my hon. Friend these practical questions. I believe that the White Fish Authority gets its main income from a levy. Seventy per cent. or a figure like that, of the fish landed in this country are landed at Hull and Grimsby, and, therefore, about 70 per cent. of the total income of the Authority comes from those two ports. I think that I am right in that supposition. I understand that these two ports, in so far as they are mainly concerned with deep sea fishing get nothing out of these subsidies. What are these


ports getting out of this Authority which they are paying so much to maintain? Can my hon. Friend tell me that?
What interests me, as an Englishman, is how much the Scottish people are getting out of these subsidies, and how much they are contributing towards them. I have a feeling that, generally, the Scots do very well out of the subsidies which the poor English taxpayer in one way or another has to provide.

Mr. Edward Evans: I think that the hon. Member is under a misapprehension as to where the subsidies come from. They are not coming from the White Fish Authority, which has nothing to do with distribution, nor has it the means to distribute these subsidies.

Mr. Osborne: That is quite true. It is a part of the work of the White Fish Authority.

Mr. Evans: No.

Mr. Osborne: Oh, yes.

Mr. Speaker: There is nothing about the White Fish Authority in the scheme.

Mr. Osborne: What I want to know is what benefit we can get in the two mains ports, or do we get nothing at all?
Finally—I hope I am allowed to say this, Mr. Speaker—this money is coming as a direct grant from the Exchequer. Of that grant, nine-tenths is subscribed by the English taxpayer. I should like to know how much of that nine-tenths comes back to the English industry, how much goes to the Scottish industry, and how much the taxpayers themselves pay towards what they are getting. I have a feeling that the English are getting a very raw deal over this proposal.

6.54 p.m.

The Joint Under-Secretary of State for Scotland (Mr. J. Henderson Stewart): As my hon. Friend the Joint-Parliamentary Secretary pointed out, this is a stop-gap measure. All that we are doing is to ask the House to agree that the present subsidy system should go on till the end of the year, so that, in the meantime, we can address ourselves to the new situation which has arisen largely on account of the increase in the price of coal. That is all that we are really discussing now.
Of course, there are other items in the fishermen's bill which have risen in price. We quite understand that, and I gladly give the assurance to hon. Members that all these matters will be examined when we are revising the situation. We obviously cannot alter the Act in the process of discussing this new Scheme. We would have to alter the Act to bring in dog-fish and shell-fish, and, while I have a great deal of sympathy with my hon. Friend the Member for St. Ives (Mr. G. R. Howard), because my constituents also catch lobsters and shellfish, it is scarcely possible to deal with that matter now.
My hon. Friend the Member for Banff (Mr. Duthie) suggested that there may be an experiment by which we may try to introduce into the subsidy paid to inshore fishermen the sort of dual system which is applied to the men fishing further out. I do not think that would be possible for the reason, which my hon. Friend will well understand, that we do not get accounts from these little fishermen. There are so many men with small boats that we cannot follow what they do, as we can the trawler owners who have to submit all their accounts. So I am afraid that this would not work.
I was glad to hear the compliments paid to the White Fish Authority by various hon. Members, and, while I would gladly join in discussions with my hon. Friend the Member for Louth (Mr. Osborne), I am afraid that it would be out of order for me to do so. I remember with great pride that the daughters of my hon. Friend the Member for Louth have been attending a famous school in my constituency. I should not like to ask who is the gainer—I think that it must be St. Andrew's—that two such distinguished young ladies should be with us. It is in that generous spirit that I should like the hon. Member to contemplate this Measure.

Mr. D. Marshall: Dog-fish are included in this Scheme, in paragraph 17. I think my hon. Friend said that they were not.

Mr. Stewart: No. We are discussing the subsidy, and the subsidy is paid only on white fish. The reference which my hon. Friend made to the matter referred to the gross catch when we are adding up the figures; but payment on dog-fish is distinctly prohibited.

Mr. Edward Evans: Would the hon. Gentleman answer a question which I put to him particularly, as he represents the Scottish Office responsible for herring fishing? Can he tell us anything about the suggested coal subsidy for herring drifters? It is important that some clarification of this issue should be made before the House rises, as the whole of the East Anglian and East Coast fishing is well under way.

Mr. Stewart: I do not think that that arises here. We have to consider many things before we come to the revised scheme which we shall place before the House.

Mr. Evans: This is a matter which should be made known.

Mr. Speaker: There is nothing here about herring; this is all white fish.

Question put and agreed to.

Resolved,
That the White Fish Subsidy (United Kingdom) Scheme, 1955, a copy of which was laid before this House on 12th July, be approved.

6.59 p.m.

Mr. Nugent: I beg to move,
That the White Fish Industry (Grants for Fishing Vessels and Engines) Scheme, 1955, a copy of which was laid before this House on 29th June, be approved.

Mr. Speaker: I understand that it is desirable to take these next two Schemes together and I agree if that is the wish of the House.

Mr. Nugent: These two Schemes for grants for vessels and engines apply one to near, middle and inshore vessels and the other to herring vessels. They are both made under the 1953 Act, the same as the Scheme which the House has now approved. The Schemes before the House make three amendments of some significance and one very minor one, to which I will call the attention of the House in detail in a moment.
It may interest right hon. and hon. Members to have a brief account of how these Schemes have been working in the past 12 months. These Schemes provide grants for building new fishing vessels at the rate of some 25 per cent. maximum for near and middle water vessels up to a limit of £25,000 total grant, and for herring boats up to a limit of £12,000. For inshore vessels there is no limit. The grant is increased to 30 per cent. For

vessels in the hands of the working owner and for engines up to 30 per cent. and a total amount of £1,250.
Taking the broad picture, the grants have been working well. We have an encouraging increase in the number of applications, in particular for near-and middle-water vessels. As I told the House last year, for near-and middle-water vessels we had 40 applications. To date this year we have had an additional 63, so that the rate of application has shown a significant increase. The number of applications for inshore vessels which I reported last year was 81, and that has risen by an additional 109 during the past 12 months. The figures for new engines are 88 this year against 72 last year. The picture is, I think, encouraging; the fishing industry is not only making use of these grants but is making use of them in increasing measure.
Turning to the amendments in the Schemes, experience has shown that in the main the Schemes are working satisfactorily and are doing what we hoped they would do. They are administered by the White Fish Authority. I welcome the kind remarks which have been made about the Authority, which has a most difficult job to do. Its problems are of extraordinary complexity but it has been tackling them in a workmanlike manner, and although no very spectacular results can be expected, I think we can look forward to steady progress. I am sure the House wishes the new chairman, Sir Louis Chick, all the good things in his difficult job. He has already shown signs of tackling it in the most resolute manner.
Turning to the first Scheme, it was intended that the White Fish Authority should have complete discretion, in considering an application, to approve or reject it. This was to ensure that in the rebuilding of the fleet there was a proper balance between one type of vessel and another, so that the size of vessel, its range and catching capacity were in balance with the fishing grounds available to us.
Some doubts have been raised whether that intention was fulfilled in the original Scheme and in order to remove them we have made the amendment to Paragraph 11 (1) which removes the doubt in this respect. It simply ensures that the Authority has complete discretion in all cases to use its judgment whether any


application shall be approved. The same provision has been made in Paragraph 8 of the Herring Scheme.
The second amendment occurs in paragraph 12 (1, e). It gives the Authority power to waive repayments of grant. The old scheme allowed no discretion in that respect. Where a grant-aided vessel was disposed of by the original applicant, the full rate of grant had to be repaid according to the period of time which had passed since the original payment of the grant.

Mr. Edward Evans: Does that mean than an owner who has had a grant and has operated his vessel for three years before disposing of it gets no rebate for the three years during which he has been operating it?

Mr. Nugent: Under the original Scheme he has at first to repay the full amount and, after that, an amount proportionate to the unexpired period. Under the amendment before the House the Authority will have full discretion as to how it deals with repayments. We find that in practice hardship may occur where an owner falls ill and has to sell his vessel. There has been hardship because of these obligations to repay. The White Fish Authority proposes to use this discretion to allow the obligation to repay to pass to the purchaser of the vessel. Provided the purchaser of the vessel undertakes the obligations to repay, the previous owner will be completely discharged. That is an entirely practical amendment which I think can do nothing but good. There is a similar amendment in the Herring Scheme, paragraph 13 (e).
The third amendment is in paragraph 12 (2). This extends from 10 to 20 years the period of control under the grant for vessels exceeding 115:9 feet in length and under 140 feet. Vessels of that size are capable of fishing in distant waters and we made a provision in the parent Act that they should be allowed two voyages a year to distant waters to give them a balance of economy in their fishing. We have found in practice that rather a large number of vessels have been built of the maximum size and it therefore seemed wise to extend from 10 to 20 years the control period during which the conditions attach to the vessels so that these vessels, which are capable of fishing in

distant waters, should be limited to two voyages a year, with a possible discretion in the Authority of an additional one making three voyages, for 20 years. I think that is a reasonable thing to do because these vessels are substantially grant-aided and if they were allowed to fish freely in distant waters in competition with the distant water fleet, which is not grant-aided, it would lead to unfair competition.
Those are the three main amendments in the Schemes. There have been detailed discussions between the Authority and the industry—the B.T.F.—to hammer out these matters. I think the Authority has reached sensible recommendations in the proposals which it put to us and which we have put in the Scheme.

7.8 p.m.

Mr. G. R. Mitchison: My right hon. Friend for Don Valley (Mr. T. Williams) authorises me to say that we welcome the continuance of a Scheme which was introduced under a Labour Government and which is now being altered in certain respects. I can go further and say that, speaking of the only fishing industry of which I have some knowledge, the inshore ring-net fishermen round the mouth of the Clyde, I am sure that the provision about repayments is not only wise but, in view of the difficulties of that industry, prudent and sensible.
I should like to ask one or two very simple questions. First of all, the practical difficulty which many of these fishermen are finding at present is rather smaller in one sense than that of vessels or engines, but is one which none the less weighs very heavily upon them. In the conditions in which they are fishing at present they have to put their nets at risk very often, and the price of nets mounts and mounts. Under the provision of the Scheme they have also to carry—and one understands it—insurance burdens. With the insurance burden and the increasing expense of any of these voyages, the loss of a net becomes a very serious matter, and I wonder whether, when further consideration is given to the Scheme, some assistance might also be considered in the matter of new nets.
Secondly, this Scheme limits the grant for new engines to 30 per cent. in the case of working fishermen. There was a time not so very long ago when engines of the type they desired were hard to come


by. Many of them, naturally enough, wishing to get on with the job, bought what engines they could get. Often they were quite good engines in their proper use, but they required a degree of skilled maintenance that one does not usually find in these small share fishermen's boats.
It seems to me that on a replacement of that sort, in a proper case, 30 per cent. may really be too little. Would it be possible to consider some increase of the percentage in proper cases? After all, sometimes no doubt it may simply be a case of old age in the engine. Even then, one feels that 30 per cent. is rather little, but in this instance there has, to my personal knowledge, been very great difficulty. I should like to follow the Army precept, no names, no pack drill —not even about engines—but I dare say that the Joint Parliamentary Secretary or his Scottish colleague will have in mind the kind of engines I know of.
Those are two small points. I should like to say one more word before concluding. The herring Scheme gives the herring fishermen a discretion about repayment which—I think I saw the Minister agree—is really needed by the circumstances of the case. I think that the Herring Industry Board which has to administer the herring Scheme has been kindly and sensible and has tempered a due regard for public funds with a necessary realisation that things are pretty difficult among those fishing for herring on the Clyde Coast now.

Sir Robert Boothby: Or anywhere else.

Mr. Mitchison: I have no doubt that things are as hard in Aberdeen, but I do not know of them at first hand. I earnestly hope that that kindness and discretion will be continued. It is more needed than ever. One cannot get blood out of a stone, and there are many instances where one cannot get money out of a West Highland inshore fisherman at present, and for the same reason—the stone has no blood; he has no money. Yet, in the interests of the nation and in the interests of food supplies, the Scheme itself is a sign that we realise the vital importance of the work these men are doing, work that is hard, risky and skilled. We realise, too, that if the food supply of this and other countries is to be

kept up, herring, and no doubt white fish, will play an important part, and would play an even more important part if people had the patience to take out the bones and get some very good food as a result.

7.15 p.m.

Sir Robert Boothby: I welcome very much these two Schemes and I should like to associate myself with what has been said on behalf of the Opposition by the hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for Kettering (Mr. Mitchison). I think that, on the whole, these two grant-loan Schemes for the inshore white fish industry and the herring industry have worked very well. I should like to associate myself with the tribute paid by the hon. and learned Gentleman to the Herring Industry Board. I think that it has worked the Scheme with sympathy and understanding and, on the whole, with conspicuous success.
I should also like to say—I am seldom so laudatory in this House—that the amendments proposed by the Government are extremely good and greatly improve the Scheme; so it is a question of "hear, hear" all round so far as I am concerned.
There are only three points which I wish to put to my hon. Friend the Joint Under-Secretary of State for Scotland about the herring industry. The first relates to the present operation of the share system. On one or two occasions recently I have asked my hon. Friend Questions about this, and he has given me an assurance that he has asked the Board to inquire into the working of the share system in the herring fleet. All I ask of him now is an assurance that that examination is taking place and that he will communicate the result to the House in due course.
The second point concerns the home market. We must keep this up, but I feel very strongly that the future of this market lies very largely in the process of quick-freezing. I should like to hear something from him of what is being done about that. It will take some time to persuade the public and the processers of the supreme value of this method of treating herring, but I am certain that it is the only method by which really good quality herring can be guaranteed to the public all the year round. There is no other way in which it can be done, and


I cannot emphasise too strongly the importance of this process to the home market. I should like to know from my hon. Friend what is being done in the matter by the Board and by the Government.
My final point relates to the question of foreign markets. I have never been one to underestimate their importance to the herring fishing industry. Israel is important. I should like my hon. Friend to say something about it. There are credit difficulties, and I should be grateful if my hon. Friend can comment. The Mediterranean is important, but there is one market which is more important than all the rest, more important than anything else in the whole world to the herring fishing industry and its future, and that is the Russian market.
I should like my hon. Friend to tell us something about a subject which has been the cause of very great anxiety during recent weeks to all of us who have the interests of industry at heart. What has happened about the Russian contract? That is absolutely vital to the industry. It is of more importance than any other single consideration.

Mr. Speaker: I ought to remark that the last part of the hon. Gentleman's speech was completely out of order. I do not think there is anything about the Russian contract in the Schemes, which have to do with vessels and engines. We must keep as near as we can to the Scheme.

7.18 p.m.

Mr. Edward Evans: I am glad that you uttered that word of warning, Mr. Speaker, because I was proposing to follow the hon. Member for Aberdeenshire, East (Sir R. Boothby) on the plea that he made about extended markets. I do not think that we can entirely divorce the problem of setting up the herring industry —and that is surely one of the objects of the Scheme—without considering the market problem. I was wondering, in view of what you have said, how far one dare follow the hon. Gentleman, not only about the herring industry but about the regulation of our markets in connection with white fish as well, and especially in the control of foreign landings.
It is no use whatever encouraging the catching element in the industry unless

we bear in mind the disposal of the catches. The basic problem in the herring industry is that of unregulated quotas. One appreciates what was said by the hon. Member for Aberdeenshire, East about quick-freezing and the disposal of these large quantities, and recalls the traditional markets which have been wantonly destroyed in the past on political grounds. It is about time we set our minds to bringing these markets back, especially in view of the favourable atmosphere that now prevails in foreign relations.
I have been asked to put before the House the position of the working fisherman, and I have done so before when we have discussed these matters. The working fisherman is rather a nebulous character. He is a man who goes to sea, but he is also the man who has been to sea, and I want—as I did in the debate on the previous Motion, to make a plea for the small undertaking—the man who has a trawler, or a trawler-drifter or a drifter or two, who is able to benefit by this scheme only to a limited extent, although he may have spent the whole of his life at sea as a working fisherman.
I hope that the regulations will be very widely drawn and that sympathy will be given to these people, because, otherwise, they will be faced with the problem that they will receive a grant and then will have to borrow. I have here the notice which the White Fish Authority has issued giving the revised rates of interest on loans, and I find that for a loan of no more than five years' duration, the rate is raised to 3⅜ per cent. For a loan for more than five but not more than fifteen years, the rate is 4 per cent., and for periods beyond that it is 4¼ per cent.
I should like to know what is to happen, in view of the Chancellor's statement this afternoon on the restriction of credit. People will never be able to buy these vessels if they are unable to negotiate loans and if the rates of interest on those loans are so high as to preclude the ordinary working fisherman, for whom the schemes are designed, from taking advantage of this provision, but, instead, to price him out of the market.
There is one point that I should like to make on the question of marketing, particularly herring. I wrote to the Herring Industry Board a few weeks ago


and put the case of a person who was trying a new development in the marketing of herring, which is the development of herring bars, one of which is operating not very far from here. I think that the experiment in this kind of fish restaurant, which supplies every type of herring from marinated herring, kippers, bloaters to bucklings and all the other delicious varieties, is inhibited through lack of capital. I put a question to the Board whether any other marketing scheme might provide a reasonable loan or grant, but it was turned down.
We on this side of the House welcome these Schemes. We had a great deal to do with the original schemes for both the Herring Industry Board and the White Fish Authority, and we realise once again what a vital part this industry plays. We are also very glad to see the emendations which the Ministry has made in the provisions of the schemes.
Finally, I want to stress that there is a tendency in the fishing industry, or in the near-water section of the industry, for the big boys to collar the markets, but we want to see that the small man has his proper share. These small men have a long tradition of the sea, because most of them have worked at sea and they know the industry thoroughly. The difficulty of obtaining the initial capital is so great and the burdens upon them, particularly in view of what the Chancellor said today, are so heavy, that their prospects are not as rosy as they ought to be today. However, we on this side will not divide against the Schemes, and we wish the Minister well in their implementation.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

7.22 p.m.

The Lord Privy Seal (Mr. Harry Crookshank): With permission, I should like to say a word about business, following on what was said after Questions today.
The Opposition have proposed that the debate on Scottish education arranged for the first half of tomorrow be postponed in order that the whole of the day may be devoted to a debate on the statement made today by the Chancellor on the economic situation.
We would then propose to take the Lords Amendments to the Rating and Valuation (Miscellaneous Provisions) Bill and the Motion to approve the Draft National Insurance (Industrial Injuries) (Colliery Workers Supplementary Scheme) Amendment (No. 2) Order.
It will be my desire to arrange for this half day on Scottish education to take place during the first week of our reassembly after the Summer Recess.
Arrangements have also been made through the usual channels for a debate to take place on the Geneva Conference on Wednesday. The debate will begin after we have passed the usual Motions relating to the dates of the Summer Recess.
We should also like to take, before the debate, the Bill to validate the election of Mr. Holland-Martin, which will be presented tomorrow. The Select Committee, in its Report, recommended that a Bill be brought in. The Committee and remaining stages of the Friendly Societies Bill will be taken at the end of the sitting.
I hope that the arrangements I have outlined will generally suit the convenience of the House as a whole, as they make it possible to have debates on these most important subjects of the day.

Mr. Herbert Morrison: We are much obliged to the Leader of the House and, indeed, to both sides of the usual channels for the arrangements which have been made. Somehow, these things can be done, and we have squeezed in at the last moment substantially two full-day debates. I think that generally the arrangements are


satisfactory, and, while I cannot bind every hon. Member on this side of the House on business that comes in incidentally, we will do our best to facilitate the business, in view of the agreement reached by the Leader of the House and the usual channels.

Mr. Crookshank: I am much obliged to the right hon. Gentleman.

Mr. Morrison: I should like to apologise to our Scottish colleagues for having been party to taking away their half-day, but I am quite sure that they will agree that, in the circumstances, it could not very well be helped. We are grateful to the Leader of the House for agreeing that they shall have a compensating half-day in the first week after our return.

Mr. William Ross: I was about to remind my right hon. Friend that the miracle of squeezing two full debates into the very short time remaining to us before the Recess has been achieved by squeezing out the Scots. We are not too willing to be squeezed out, and it has come as a matter of surprise and a certain amount of wonderment that, when facing a situation in which we are about to have a three months' Recess, this way out of the difficulty is sought rather than that of making fresh arrangements for the Recess. We are not unmindful of the fact that what has just been announced might affect the debate on Scottish education very considerably. I should like the Lord Privy Seal to be aware that we take full notice of his promise to give us, if not a full day, at least half a day early in the week of our return after the Recess.

Mr. Speaker: I must now recall hon. Members to the Question before the House.

FISHING INDUSTRY (SUBSIDY AND GRANTS)

7.28 p.m.

Mr. Anthony Fell: The hon. Member for Lowestoft (Mr. Edward Evans), in the final phase of his speech, stressed the importance of schemes of this nature because of the help they give to the little man. I must say that in these days, when the tendency is for everything to become larger and larger and for the small private enterprises to disappear, I

find myself in complete agreement with what the hon. Gentleman said.
It is very important that we should give every possible incentive to those who are trying to build a livelihood for themselves, particularly in such an industry as this, upon which the nation relies so much when it comes to a matter of defending ourselves against foreign countries.
I want to ask my hon. Friend a question about paragraph 8 of this Scheme, which is a new paragraph. It states:
In the payment of grants in pursuance of this scheme, the Board shall have regard to the needs and interests of the herring industry or that section thereof to which the applicants belong;
I find it rather difficult to understand his explanation, though I am sure that it is because I have not quite followed him. I wonder whether he could let me know whether there are any other reasons for this provision.
I understood the Minister to say that it was because he wanted to keep the size of the boat in balance in relation to various ports, but I should have thought that under the old Scheme there was every possible safeguard, as indeed there is in the new Scheme, for the Board to ensure that the right type of boat was used. It will be seen from paragraph 10 (2) of the new Herring Industry (Grants for Fishing Vessels and Engines) Scheme that
The plans and specifications of the vessel or engine, the tender for the expenditure incurred or to be incurred and the form of contract entered into or to be entered into by the applications with the builder, seller or contractor shall be subject to the approval of the Board.
If that is so, why is it necessary to incorporate an additional paragraph in the Scheme?
I fear that it is possible for the new paragraph to be misinterpreted by those who have to put the Scheme into effect. It could be interpreted in such a way as to harm certain ports for some reason of which we might not be fully cognisant at the moment. I am not satisfied from what I have heard so far—perhaps because I have misunderstood the matter —that there is a really sound reason for incorporating the extra paragraph in the Scheme. There are also about six alterations to paragraph 13 of the Scheme compared with the old Scheme. I should


like an assurance that all the alterations relate to the one subject that has been mentioned by the Minister.
Lastly, I hope that I shall not be out of order in referring to what was said by the hon. Member for Lowestoft about the other Scheme which we have just debated, and the question of some compensation to the coal-using part of the herring fleet. I hope that we shall have some sort of assurance from the Minister that this matter will be considered in the same way as the assistance for coal-burning ships in the white fish industry.

7.33 p.m.

Mr. Grimond: When we are considering the size of the fleet and we are complimenting the White Fish Authority and the Herring Industry Board on their work, it is relevant to bear in mind that they have still a great deal to do in the matter of transporting, processing—particularly deep-freezing—and marketing. These Schemes have done a great deal of good to the fishing industry. I like them particularly because they provide some capital to an industry which, on the whole, is short of capital, especially in its inshore fishing section. Assistance to the industry should be regarded by the country as an investment, not only as a safeguard in time of war and as keeping up a highly important industry, but also as enabling the consumer to obtain a supply of good fish.
I welcome the amendments to this Scheme by which the obligations undertaken by the original builder of the boat can be passed on to his successor, but I am a little more doubtful about the thinking behind some of the other amendments. Most of the boats built in my part of the world are dual-purpose boats and I do not think that on the whole our fishing fleet is over-expanded. I am not at all sure that the thought behind the Scheme is that the fleet, or some part of it, should be restricted. We should know the Government's views on that point.
It is extremely important to consider the new skipper and crew to which loans are to be made. That is the prime business of the White Fish Authority. We have had a very good white fish season and better herring fishing this year in Shetland. I think that it is generally agreed that we still want more boats and more re-engined boats. The only parts of Shetland which retain their population

are those parts where there are fishing communities. I believe that, quite apart from traditional methods of fishing, there is considerable room for expansion in new districts, in new waters and by new methods.
I am not at all sure that we have done enough in experimenting with new methods of fishing. The hon. Member for Banff (Mr. Duthie) has mentioned on previous occasions new methods of herring fishing. I ask the Government whether they would not consult with the Authority about the scope of experiments and about the size of boats. Many of the old, small boats which we used to see are finished. It is difficult to make a good living with them, but the bigger boats can earn a good living because they can change about and move to new waters.
We are told that the number of new boats now being built is increasing, but the total number is 180 to 190. When one looks at the whole coastline of Britain I do not think that that is such a very large number. Nor do I think that the number of new engines is by any means excessive. I agree that when good engines were scarce, less satisfactory engines were installed in some boats and that it might be more economical if those boats were now re-engined.
Grants might also be given in respect of good quality secondhand boats. I notice a tendency among fishermen to buy such boats. As they are rather shrewd people, there may be something to be said for that practice. The Government should consider whether there is not a case for giving some assistance in the buying of really good secondhand boats. There were adequate safeguards in the old Schemes under which a local authority could investigate matters very carefully before giving a loan.
The whole fishing industry depends a great deal on advice given by fishery officers and the White Fish Authority and the Department. It is very important, with a Scheme of this kind, that the Ministry should keep up-to-date with new catching methods not only in this country but elsewhere and make all possible information available to the industry. It is an industry of small, scattered units. It needs encouragement, advice and, to some extent, organisation. Having said that, I welcome the Schemes. I think that in the past they have enabled a good job to be done not only for the industry but for the country as a whole.

7.39 p.m.

Major Sir Duncan McCallum: I also welcome the Schemes. I particularly welcome the Amendment which has been referred to by the Minister to the instructions to the Herring Industry Board on the different attitude which it is to take towards applications for grants or loans. In passing, I would say to the hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr. Grimond) that the idea of making grants in respect of secondhand boats might lead to a certain amount of trouble, in that in the Clyde fishing area, to which the hon. and learned Member for Kettering (Mr. Mitchison) referred, owing to distressed circumstances and other factors a number of grant-aided boats have already been sold secondhand. I take it that the hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland would not advocate that boats which had already been grant-aided should qualify for further grants when resold to persons who intended to use them for fishing.
What I am coming to is this question of the Clyde fishing fleet and the ring net fishing referred to by the hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for Kettering. I would deprecate what he said just now about the impossibility of getting enough money to pay for his share of a boat from a West Highland fisherman. He must know in his own village that four or five new boats are being acquired by fishermen, and I understand that they are being paid for. I think his forecast was a little bit severe on the fishermen of Carradale.
I know what the hon. and learned Gentleman was referring to, and it is a question which I have already taken up with my hon. Friend the Joint Under-Secretary. It concerns loans and grants under previous orders, and it is this very amendment now proposed which refers to the point he was making, the insistence by the Herring Industry Board on the strict letter of the law for the repayment of loans given for the purchase and building of boats, particularly to ex-Service men coming out of the Services after the war.
As is well known, herring fishing on the west coast, particularly off South-West Scotland, is probably the worst herring fishing around the coast of Scotland, and it has been so for years past. The recent forecasts by scientists do not seem to give

any hope of improvement in the herring fishing for some years to come. Whether that is because of over-fishing or trawling damage to the spawning beds is not for me to say. It is a fact that that particular section of the west coast is in difficulties.
Therefore it is my hope that the instructions contained in this new Scheme to the Herring Industry Board will be interpreted to the letter, particularly where it says:
The Board shall have regard to the needs and interests of the herring industry or that section to which the applicant belongs.
That is most important, because while the fishing on the east coast, the Orkney and Shetland fishing, and even the Minch fishing, has been quite good recently, the standard on the west coast has been poor and is going to remain poor. I would agree with what the hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr. Grimond) said—that he hoped these boats being built—and I give this to the hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for Kettering—are going to be the larger-sized vessels which can be used as dual-purpose boats.
I was told by the Campbeltown fishermen about the difficulty of conversion of the smaller boats to dual-purpose boats. I asked why did they not convert their boats in that way and go in for white fishing when the herring fishing was bad. It was pointed out that the boats, paid for with the aid of grants, were too small to be turned into dual-purpose vessels, and even if they could enlarge them the conversion costs would be as much as £800 as a minimum, which is quite a large sum of money for these share owners to find in addition to the money they have already put up for the purchase of the boat itself.
In conclusion, I would say to my hon. Friend the Joint Under-Secretary that I sincerely trust that this new instruction to the Herring Industry Board will be carried out most sympathetically, particularly in regard to those who are known as the ring-net herring fishermen.

7.44 p.m.

Mr. Hector Hughes: I want to touch on the one aspect of the problem which has not adequately been dealt with, that of renewing and maintaining the fishing fleets. The Scheme, as it is laid before us, is good, and the White Fish Authority


is able and willing, but I understand that the difficulty facing the Authority is unwillingness to take advantage of the Scheme by persons entitled to benefit by it. They fall into two classes, the large man and the small man. Some of the larger owners seem to be unwilling to take advantage of the benefits conferred by this and the preceding Schemes, and some of the smaller men do not seem able to do it.
The problem is, how is the Scheme to be implemented, how it is to be made more constructive? Is it to be made more constructive by offering terms better than those in this and the preceding Scheme to the people entitled to avail themselves of it? This is the real problem to be solved, because the Schemes cannot fully benefit the people for whom they are intended, unless those people will come in in large numbers and seek the advantages which are offered to them. Happily I am in a position to talk in a constructive way about this. [HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear."] I am not saying this in any invidious way. Other hon. Members have spoken in a constructive way and, if anyone feels he has not, let him wear the cap if he thinks it fits.
I have been perturbed by this problem, and I approached Sir Louis Chick and Captain Allan, who are respectively, as everyone knows, the Chairman of the White Fish Authority and the Chairman of the Committee for Scotland and Northern Ireland of the White Fish Authority. Furthermore, on 17th August last year the Scottish Committee met the trawler owners of Aberdeen with a view to discussing this very problem. They arrived at a satisfactory understanding, of which these are the main features. First, the White Fish Authority would assist in every possible way if the trawler owners would take steps to build, renovate and extend the fishing fleet; second, the large trawler owners, who could afford to act alone if they so wished, should embark on a building programme, either as single owners, dual owners or treble owners; third, provision had to be made for the smaller owners, and it was suggested that they could group themselves for reasons of economy, in that way finance the rebuilding, and then put up a certain amount of the capital, asking the White Fish Authority under this and the preceding Scheme for the assistance which the Schemes provided.
Here the White Fish Authority presents a beneficient opportunity to owners large and small to do what this series of Schemes and the legislation on which they are based envisaged. Captain Allan gave as an example of one scheme somewhat larger than that envisaged here. He pointed out that if a new trawler costs £100,000, the White Fish Authority would make a grant of £25,000 and would give a loan of £60,000, making £85,000, which deducted from £100,000 would leave £15,000 to be found by the owners. One single rich owner could do that. He could have put up the £15,000 and apply to the White Fish Authority for the balance.
Poor owners and the smaller owners could group together, Captain Allan pointed out. Any group of them could put up £15,000 at £1,500 each. Such a syndicate would, of course, share both the profits and the liabilities of the transaction. Such liabilities would include the liability for the repayment of the loan. Some earlier speakers referred to the rate of interest. At the time the meeting was held in Aberdeen rates of interest were lower than they are today. At that time 2½ per cent. was the rate for loans for not more than five years; now it is 3 per cent. At that time 3½ per cent, was the rate for loans of from five years to fifteen years; now it is 4 per cent. At that time 4 per cent. was the rate for loans from fifteen years to twenty years; now I understand it is 4½ per cent.
The Scottish Committee of the White Fish Authority assures me that it will give enthusiastic support to any such scheme. It will help the industry by expert guidance and advice in drafting and formulating plans for rebuilding or renovating fleets. I have received a letter from Captain Allan indicating the willingness of the White Fish Authority to assist in any way. It is a long letter, and I shall not trouble the House with more than a paragraph of it. He states:
…the White Fish Authority are considering ways and means of stimulating the rebuilding of the fleet in Aberdeen and considered that if the single trawler owners could group themselves into larger units they would be in a better position to finance the building of new vessels on a scrap and build policy. It is difficult at this stage to give any further detailed information but Sir Louis Chick and myself in consultation with Departments are doing all we can to put forward ideas that would be acceptable to the trawler owners in Aberdeen in the rebuilding of their fleet. You


may be interested to know that up to date applications for 16 new trawlers have been received from Aberdeen, 9 of which will be built during the next 9 years. Although that is a beginning, it does not meet the critical situation…
This certainly does go some way to meet the critical situation. This Scheme is a tiny step further towards meeting the great problem of the rebuilding and renovating of fleets, not only at Aberdeen, but at Milford Haven and elsewhere.
This Scheme thoroughly recommends itself to the House on these grounds. The quotation which I have made from Captain Allan's letter shows two things; the commendable good will of the White Fish Authority and the fact that it is necessary to make haste in the rebuilding of the fleets. Captain Allan says that of sixteen applications nine will be built in the next nine years. That is far too slow to save the industry, and one naturally asks what will happen in the meantime? What is to happen to the ageing fleet? What is to happen to the crews? What is to happen to the families dependent on them? I submit, as I said earlier, that the White Fish Authority is doing extremely good work, but it is handicapped because it has not sufficient powers or enough money at its disposal.
This is a small Scheme, and I should be strongly in favour of a bigger scheme. I should favour giving the White Fish Authority bigger and better powers in order to do more and better work. I said earlier, about the other Scheme, that when I was on the committee which considered the first Statute dealing with this legislation we were, at that time, concerned about whether we were giving the White Fish Authority too much power. I say now, with the experience of the years which have passed, and the work of the White Fish Authority as contained in the reports which it has presented to this House, that the Authority has justified itself and should be given larger powers and more money to enable it—

Mr. Duthie: Mr. Duthie rose—

Mr. Hughes: —just a moment—to do more work in renovating the fleets, not only in Aberdeen, but elsewhere.

Mr. Duthie: Would the hon. and learned Gentleman indicate what extra powers he would give to the White Fish Authority?

Mr. Hughes: What powers?

Mr. Duthie: Yes, what powers additional to the powers they already have?

Mr. Hughes: I know perfectly well what extra powers they should have, but I think that Mr. Deputy-Speaker would rule me out of order were I to embark on a discussion about them. Surely, with his wide and long experience, the hon. Member for Banff (Mr. Duthie) who interrupted me so courteously must know what are the needs of the situation and the kind of powers which the White Fish Authority should have.
I strongly support this Scheme, as is evident by what I have said, and I commend it to the House.

7.55 p.m.

Mr. D. Marshall: The hon. and learned Member for Aberdeen, North (Mr. Hector Hughes) will forgive me if I do not follow him in his discourse on powers for the White Fish Authority. There is one point which I wish to put to the Minister about this Scheme. He will have observed and, no doubt, realised, that under this Scheme there are two things which stand out: one is the help for the catchers in the industry when they wish to build a vessel and the other is the question of new engines.
These Schemes flow mainly from the Bill, conceived in 1944, and introduced into the House in 1945. At that time there was not as much concentration on certain inventions for helping to catch fish at sea. I trust that I may have the attention of the Minister when I put this point. Under this Scheme, so far as I can observe, there is no allowance made for the owner who wishes to modernise his vessel. If the owner wishes to place an echo-sounding device, or any other contrivance, in his vessel in order to make it more efficient, I cannot see that under this Scheme he can obtain any assistance. I hope that the Joint Under-Secretary of State for Scotland will pay attention to that point, and also refer to the question of dog-fish.
Hon. Members will agree that the major principle underlying these Schemes is to have up-to-date and modern vessels catching at their maximum efficiency. It would be far better to have a certain amount of flexibility and elasticity within the Schemes to allow these vessels, which may be modern, to be fully equipped


with all the modern devices, and that provision should be made for it in the same way as for new engines.

7.58 p.m.

Mr. Duthie: I welcome with little qualification the Scheme dealing with the provision of boats for the white fish industry. I think that a magnificent opportunity is provided for the fishermen, and that the way is clear to a progressive and successful future for the good fisherman who means to work hard.
But when it comes to boats to be provided under the Herring Industry Board I approach the problem with some caution. The herring industry is experiencing a difficult period at present, and I am surprised that the difficulties which are besetting the industry have not been emphasised more in this debate. I trust that I shall not be ruled out of order if I attempt to examine some of these problems, because their solution, or attempted solution, is necessary before I can wholeheartedly recommend to my constituents who are herring fishermen that they avail themselves of the facilities offered by this Scheme.
I refer, in particular, to what is happening on the east coast of Scotland at the present time. These glut conditions are being repeated year after year and have become chronic. We have now to accept them as a continuous problem, and as one that must be solved because each year more and more fishermen are, on account of them, leaving the herring industry and are concentrating on white fishing.
The Herring Industry Board has done a very fine job in many of the facets of its activities, but no one can gainsay the fact that there is at present a most lamentable lack of adequate facilities for dealing with glut conditions. It may be argued that no one can cope with such conditions, but I submit that they can be coped with, and that provision for coping with them should have been made long before this.
More herrings are being landed than can be coped with. At the inception of the Herring Industry Board and its attendant schemes it was hoped that the oil and meal factory would, in a large measure, take up the slack engendered by glut conditions. These are all considerations which must be carefully weighed in

deciding on the usefulness or otherwise of this Scheme.
I make so bold as to say that the present factory provision for oil and meal is simply playing with the problem in relation to the conditions with which we are faced at the moment. We may be told that if the factory at Peterhead were in working order that would resolve the difficulty. I know that the Herring Industry Board is not to blame for the fact that the factory is not in working order; I know that there are great mechanical difficulties and difficulties in getting the necessary components, but even if that factory and the one at Avoch were in working order the result would only be a fleabite.
Thousands of crans a day of magnificent herring in the finest nutritional condition are going to waste. These glut conditions must be taken care of by providing storage for the herrings so that they can be utilised throughout the year by the reduction plant, for kippering and for sale as frozen herring. That can only be done by the introduction of an elaborate and ambitious freezing scheme. Without a freezing scheme of far greater proportions than have hitherto been visualised either by the Herring Industry Board or by the industry itself, we shall continue only to play with the matter, as we are doing now, so far as the reduction plants are concerned.
I have discussed the present situation in the east of Scotland with the people concerned, who inform me that frozen herring would be admirable for producing kippers and for processed herring throughout the winter and also for the production of oil and meal. It must be borne in mind that the herring which is going to waste at the present time contains anything from 16 to 25 per cent. of oil. The winter herring contains anything from 6 to 8 per cent. of oil. This proves the oil potential which we are losing because we have not adequate facilities for keeping the herring in good condition during the weeks and months that lie ahead.
If we really wish to save the herring industry and not only retain the men already in it, but induce others to enter it, we must provide the necessary auxiliary to our reduction plants by way of a comprehensive freezing plant at every herring port throughout the country. Indeed,


such plants need not be confined only to herring. They could be erected in centres where they could freeze other things than fish, but in which sufficient space would be devoted to the freezing of herring during glut conditions.
The tragedy of the present situation on the east coast is that the present weeks, when the shoals are at their heaviest, is the very time which the herring fisherman regards as his harvest. This is being denied to him at present, and I am practically sure that unless some assurance is given that a comprehensive freezing scheme is coming along more people will leave the industry. This lamentable situation on the east coast happens at the time when the herring should have been at their very best. Recently, the boats have not been permitted to put to sea because there is such an accumulation of fish that the curers and reduction plants cannot cope with it.

Sir R. Boothby: My hon. Friend must not say that the herring have been at their very best in recent weeks, because that is to mislead the House. He knows as well as I do that the herring have been very soft and could not be cured. Therefore, he is not right in saying that during this period, and especially during these last two or three days, the herring have been at their best. They have, in fact been at their worst.

Mr. Duthie: I said that these were the weeks in the year when the fishermen on the east coast looked forward to making the bulk of their money. It is quite true that the ports have been closed, and it may be that the fishermen themselves have been a contributory factor in the herring not reaching port in the best condition. The fact remains, however, that had we had sufficient freezing accommodation for the fish, all the oil that they contained would have been saved for the country.

Mr. Edward Evans: What worries me about this great scheme for freezing herring is what we are going to do with them when they have been frozen. We cannot sell them when they are in prime condition, so is it likely that they would get a market throughout the year if they were frozen?

Mr. Deputy-Speaker (Sir Rhys Hopkin Morris): This discussion appears to be very interesting, but, as I understand, it goes beyond the Scheme.

Mr. Duthie: I bow to your Ruling, Mr. Deputy-Speaker, but it appears to me that the considerations which I am now raising are very germane to the problem of the provision of new boats. I could not possibly recommend any constituents of mine to invest in new vessels unless they know what is to happen to their catches when they are brought ashore.
I suggest that there should be an all-out drive for the sale of herring in this country. The hon. and learned Member for Kettering (Mr. Mitchison) suggested that we might produce a machine which would remove the bones from herring. I believe that one such machine has already been produced. A great deal remains to be done to make the herring popular, and not enough is being done to emphasise the food value of pickled herring. A great deal remains to be done there.

Mr. Evans: What about the herring bars?

Mr. Duthie: It is a very good thing if these herring bars have started. Let us hope that they multiply themselves ad lib throughout the country.

Mr. George Lawson: Would not the hon. Member agree that the fact that herrings are so regularly sold outwith conditions—and that the quality of herrings is so various—has played a large part in lessening the demand?

Mr. Deputy-Speaker: This argument goes beyond the scope of the Schemes, which deal with new ships and insurance.

Mr. Duthie: I suggest that the Herring Board should be asked to consider the application of one price only for herring landings. It should be up to the Board to channel the herrings to whichever avenue of disposal may require them—freezing, kippering, oil and meal, and so forth.
I submit that the potential herring catch is nearly sufficient, given adequate facilities, for extraction, to meet our need for edible oil. The party opposite has preened itself on the fact that it was the Bill of 1945 which launched the scheme. If one tithe of the money wasted on East African groundnuts had been channelled into the herring industry—

Mr. Deputy-Speaker: Order.

Mr. Duthie: If the provisions of the Herring Industry Scheme are to be wholeheartedly taken up by our fishermen, the marketing policy of the Board will require drastic overhaul. I sincerely trust that my hon. Friend will take that fact to heart and do what he can to have it put into effect. If it requires more legislation, let us have the legislation as speedily as possible.

8.12 p.m.

Mr. G. R. Howard: I wonder if it is by chance that some of us have detected a slight whiff of fish in the air-conditioning system? Some of us have noticed that delectable aroma in various parts of the House, doubtless through some fault in the system.
Many hon. Members will have had the experience I had recently of seeing new boats. I saw one last week in a place where fishing has gone down a great deal. The fact that I saw a new boat there was said to be the result of Schemes such as the ones we are discussing tonight. Within the last week or so, in another part of my constituency, I saw another new and good boat. Many people in this industry are hoping that they will be able to carry on their job and be, as we so often say in this House, of vital assistance to us in peace and in war, but what is the use of providing the facilities for these men to go to sea if, at certain times of the year—even when they catch good fish—their fish is not readily saleable?
The hon. Member for Lowestoft (Mr. Edward Evans) will remember that when we went to Iceland together we saw between 75 and 100 quick-freezing factories. I have a photograph of one in my hand. If Iceland can do this, why cannot we? If we are to spend money upon these boats, it is essential for the Government to remember the necessity for the White Fish Authority and the Herring Industry Board to make adequate provision for quick-freezing of the catches in time of glut so that this useful and necessary food may be made available more often in times of shortage. If that is to be done, it is absolutely essential to popularise this fish.
If we are to have more new boats, the Government must consider whether we have enough fishery protection vessels. I do not think that we have. We could do with some more, especially as we know that some of our neighbours

are apt to place a different interpretation upon the fishing limits. It is necessary to have as many fishery protection vessels as we can to protect the men who are going out to sea in these boats.
Again, can we really be justified in confining the spending of money to boats and engines alone? It was suggested earlier that nets might be included. That would be a very good idea, because we all know the cost of gear. It was also suggested that echo sounders should be included, because they provide the modern way of detecting shoals of fish, and it would be a great help if new fishing vessels could be fitted with them.
It is not much good encouraging men to come into this industry if, when they bring their catches back, they find that they cannot sell them. I beseech the Government, before the end of the year, to look closely into the question of spending money on freezing plant. We seem to be able to give the coal industry all the money it wants, but in this case, in respect of an amount which appears to be very small in comparison with that concerned with the coal industry—but which might be of vital interest to this great industry—

Mr. Edward Evans: What money is given to the coal industry?

Mr. Deputy-Speaker: We cannot pursue the question of money which is given to the coal industry.

Mr. Howard: I am sorry. I mean to say that, in addition to the money spent in the coal industry, we might well expend some more money on going ahead with research into freezing—

Mr. Deputy-Speaker: That, too, goes beyond the scope of the Schemes.

Mr. Howard: We must take such steps as will make this very necessary Scheme a useful one, not only in providing the boats, but in providing facilities for the men to sell their catches when they bring them in.

8.19 p.m.

Mr. Coldrick: I had no intention of participating in this debate, but I am bewildered by the statements which have been made by some of the speakers. In the first place, we are asking for public money to be provided in order to assist this fishing industry, and


yet I observe that many hon. Members opposite who are usually noted for their advocacy of economy in public expenditure are demonstrating great alacrity in pressing that public money should be made available for private owners in the fishing industry.
One hon. Member opposite was pointing out that already far too many fish are being provided and that, in consequence, we must build up elaborate machinery for refrigeration, build refineries, and so on, in order to make use of the catches. If we are supplying too much fish, on what ground is it claimed that additional assistance should be given to place more fish on the market? I suspect that this marketing board is very much like other marketing boards: the organisation has been created and it produces the fish, but owing to a defect in its organisation the fish is not made available to consumers. I have not heard people complain that fish is too cheap. On the other hand, I have heard many complaints that fish is far too dear.

Mr. Deputy-Speaker: The hon. Member cannot discuss the price of fish on this Motion.

Mr. Coldrick: The price enters materially into the matter. We are asked to provide public money to pay for the boats, but why cannot sufficient money be recovered from the market to pay for them?

Mr. Deputy-Speaker: The hon. Member can refer to the matter by way of illustration as a reason why money should not be granted, but he cannot go any further.

Mr. Coldrick: I seek elucidation on one or two points. If we have not sufficient fish for the market, why is so much fish converted into meal and fertiliser? Are the people who are providing the fish securing a price equal to that which they get from the consumers of fresh fish? If not, and they are supplying fish cheaply to be used as fertiliser, is this not an indirect method of getting the public's money to build trawlers and catch fish in order to subsidise those who use the fish as fertilisers? We want an investigation into that aspect of the matter before we can feel happy about according public assistance to these people.

8.23 p.m.

Mr. John Hall: The constituency which I represent is not notable for the size of its fishing fleet, nor do we benefit directly from the Scheme. I hope it will benefit indirectly, because it contains a number of consumers of fish. My excuse for intervening in this debate is that I have spent some time in the fishing industry, in the greatest port in the country, Grimsby. When I was at Grimsby, some of the other places which have been mentioned in the debate as being the home of the best fish were regarded in Grimsby as being seaside resorts and having no greater claim than that. I do not want to enter into a debate on the quality of fish, but there are aspects of the Scheme which interest me a little.
The hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr. Grimond) spoke of the types of boat which might be provided and wondered whether we were building the right kind for fishing in the future. That is a very profitable line of investigation. I notice that the Scheme gives considerable grants to owners who are to build boats up to 140 feet in length. It states in paragraph 9 (2)
(2) The plans and specifications of the vessels or engine, the tender for expenditure incurred or to be incurred and the form of contract entered into or to be entered into by the applicant with the builder, seller or contractor shall be subject to the approval of the Authority.
I wonder what that means. Has the Authority in mind some new kind of vessel, a modern type of fishing vessel, a departure from the old, conventional type? Does this indicate something more, that the Authority will co-operate with the Admiralty in ensuring that the new vessels are capable of rapid conversion for use in war? Have they to have special keels or specially reinforced decks for gun platforms? Is the owner to incur a great additional expense in this direction which would more than swallow up the grant he might get from the Authority?
I go a little further. There has been discussion in the industry whether we are developing the right type of vessel for near- and middle-water fishing. The North Sea trawlers have not changed a great deal for many years, and it is a question whether we should not build much smaller vessels to accompany a factory vessel. They could stay at sea


and be supplied and victualled by the factory vessel. Such small fishing vessels would be much cheaper to construct and cheaper in operation, and they would not have to go back to port every 10 days or so as they do now.

Mr. Edward Evans: What about the dual-purpose trawler?

Mr. Hall: That is another type of vessel, the catching-and-processing vessel, which both catches and processes the fish. There have been many experiments with that kind of vessel, which requires to be at least 140 feet long. There is the question how far processing can be done on a trawler. It is possible, for example, to extract cod livers and to extract the oil on the boats before the cod livers are landed.

Mr. G. R. Howard: The Scheme does not cover ships of that size.

Mr. Hall: I had that point in mind. We cannot carry out experiments of the factory kind with the type of vessel covered by the Scheme, which relates to vessels below 140 feet long. These are confined almost entirely to the near and middle waters and are not normally suitable for the dual purpose of catching and factory operations. It would be possible to develop fleets of small vessels under the Scheme to surround a factory ship. That may be a line of investigation for the Authority to follow with even more energy than in the past.
I hope it will be in order for me to refer to some of the duties of the Authority, as they have a direct bearing on the grants to be given to shipowners or trawler owners who want to build new ships. I want to take up some of the points made by the hon. and learned Member for Aberdeen, North (Mr. Hector Hughes), who praised the White Fish Commission for the work it had done. I am not sure that I can join wholeheartedly in his praise of the Authority, because I rather doubt whether it has carried out its investigations with the vigour which might have been expected of it. I would like to list some of these matters, which have a direct bearing on the Scheme.
There is the question of our fishing methods. There has been a lot of controversy for a long time about trawling. There is no doubt that with the trawl

now used, much of the food on which the plankton feed—and on which the fish feed—is destroyed. If the White Fish Authority is to give grants of this kind to fishing vessels, it should make sure that the methods of fishing are not such as will destroy the sea bed growths on which the plankton lives—and without the plankton the fish would not be there. [An HON. MEMBER: "Conservancy."] Yes, this is a problem which concerns many countries other than our own, and we seem to be having a lot of difficulty in arriving at some international agreement on a form of conservancy.
There is another form of conservancy which I doubt very much whether the White Fish Authority has considered to any great extent. That is whether or not we can fertilise the sea bed. We are accustomed to fertilising the land on which we grow crops, but we have not got used to the possibility of fertilising the sea bed and so encouraging an increase in the growth on which the plankton lives. If the growth of considerable quantities of the food on which plankton lives is encouraged, one encourages a greater yield of fish. It is a line of approach which the Authority should consider.

Sir D. McCallum: Perhaps my hon. Friend is not aware that there is an experiment in fertilising the sea for plankton at present proceeding on the west coast of Scotland.

Mr. Deputy-Speaker: This, too, seems to be going beyond the scope of the Scheme.

Mr. Hall: With respect, it is extremely difficult to come to any proper conclusions on this Scheme—which will result in giving large grants to people wanting to build new trawlers—without considering whether or not those trawlers will be able to fish successfully, will have areas in which to find fish, and will be able to market the fish they catch.

Mr. Deputy-Speaker: I think those matters can be touched upon in so far as they affect the grants under the Scheme but in regard to those issues and those issues alone. Otherwise, I think it will be out of order.

Mr. Hall: With respect to your Ruling, Mr. Deputy-Speaker, perhaps I can develop another line of research which the


Authority may also consider if the grants are to be used profitably and well. Several hon. Members have stressed the importance of deep-freezing facilities; and most of them have referred to that process in connection with the herring industry. There is just as much demand and need for deep freezing in the white fish industry. From my personal experience in Grimsby, I would say that for a long time they have been well aware of, and very alive to the necessity of developing deep-freezing facilities. When I first had an association with those in the Grimsby fishing industry ten years ago, they were considering quite ambitious schemes for developing deep-freezing plants. If the Authority is not to see its money wasted, it should have a chain of deep-freezing plants, not only at every fishing port throughout the country, but also at inland centres into which they can feed from one deep freezer to another.
Following on that we need far better transport facilities for fish than we have at present. The insulated railway vans are an absolute disgrace to British Railways. At Grimsby port there is a monopoly. Fish can only be taken from the port in rail conveyors. Road transport cannot be used at all. But I see, Mr. Deputy-Speaker, that you are intimating that I should leave this line of argument—but I think that I have made the point.
There are other lines of investigation which the Authority should consider if it is really to be certain that these trawlers are to serve the nation profitably from the time they are built. One such investigation should be to see how best the fish can be marketed and distributed. The trawler which is to be built with these grants will often find that it has to land its cargo in ports which are, generally speaking, rather out of date, and where the facilities for handling fish are by no means as good as they should be. The fish is then fed through the transport distribution to inland wholesale markets which in many cases are a disgrace. It then goes to the retail shops which are very old fashioned in their outlook and in their presentation of the fish. I used to tell those in the fishing industry that they had never attempted to sell fish. They had merely distributed it to the customer. One of the reasons why herring does not sell as well as it should is that it is not presented—

Mr. Deputy-Speaker: This certainly does not arise on the Scheme.

Mr. Hall: It is extremely difficult, Mr. Deputy-Speaker, to consider this fully and profitably, and to decide whether or not to vote for the possible expenditure in advance of considerable sums of money if we are not to consider what is to happen to the end product, because if we have faulty methods at the port—

Mr. Deputy-Speaker: It may be difficult, but, within the scope of the Scheme, we cannot discuss every problem related to the industry.

Mr. Hall: Naturally I must bow to your Ruling, Mr. Deputy-Speaker, and refrain from attempting to carry this matter any further. But I hope that I have said enough to show that I feel that the White Fish Authority could do rather more than it has done to help the trawler fishing industry and, indeed, the herring fishing industry not only in the building of boats, which in itself is an important matter, but in the eventual marketing of the products which they catch.
Let me make one last reference to the number of boats built. It has been suggested that it is wrong to limit the number of boats and that more could be equipped. One of the duties of the White Fish Authority is to make certain that too many boats are not equipped, because it is easy to over-catch and cause a glut which could not be absorbed by the fishmeal factories or in any other way and would result in a loss to the fishermen. One way to prevent this is to restrict the number of catching units. That is a very important feature of the White Fish Authority's work, to ensure that the fishing units we have fulfil the consumer needs of the country.

Sir D. McCallum: My hon. Friend has referred to the dual-purpose boat. I think he was referring to another kind of dual purpose. I think the fishermen in my part of the country have in mind a boat which catches herring and which can be turned over to catching white fish. I think my hon. Friend had in mind a trawler which could be turned over to processing.

Mr. Hall: That is true. I had in mind the white fish industry rather than the herring industry. I accept that one can


have a dual-purpose boat of the kind to which my hon. and gallant Friend referred, which can be used for catching herring and white fish.
I was discussing the limitation of the size of the catching units. If we allow too large a fleet to be built, there will be intensive competition on the fishing grounds, and that, more than anything else, will lead to the destruction of those grounds. I know fishermen very well. They are very independent and very fine men. When I listen to questions at Question time and in debates, about the price of fish, I feel that if people only realised the difficulties with which fishermen have to contend, especially those who go into the middle and distant waters, and the appalling conditons under which they work, people would not be so critical about the price of fish.
The fact that fishermen have to face these dangers makes the average fisherman a person of independence of mind who has an unconventional attitude towards the law as a rule. Therefore, if we have too big a fleet and too many catching units, a great deal of intensive competition will develop within the various fishing areas, and certain rules and regulations designed to protect the fishing industry will be flouted. The consequent destruction of the fishing grounds will take many years to put right.
Having said that, I join with other hon. Members in all quarters of the House in welcoming this Scheme as a useful step to help the fishing industry to retain its prosperity.

8.39 p.m.

Mr. Geoffrey Wilson: I had not intended to speak in this debate, as two of my hon. Friends and neighbours in Cornwall have already spoken, namely, my hon. Friends the Members for St. Ives (Mr. G. R. Howard) and for Bodmin (Mr. D. Marshall).
We in Cornwall are not concerned with herring, but we are concerned with pilchards, white fish and shell fish. In Mevagissey, in my division, fishing for white fish exists on an extensive scale, mostly in comparatively small boats by the method known as the long line. I hope that these Schemes will be of value to the small fishermen as well as to those who use the bigger boats. In so far as the grant that can be obtained under these Schemes will be of benefit to them, I am

sure that we all welcome the Schemes. It will also help the boat building industry of which there are a number of small units in Cornwall, including my own division.

Mr. G. R. Howard: Some of the finest.

Mr. Wilson: My hon. Friend said, "some of the finest." That is quite true, because the small units have been commissioned by the Admiralty on many occasions to assist in the building of boats for the Admiralty.
I think that these Schemes will be welcomed in so far as they assist the industry. The hon. Member for Bristol, North-East (Mr. Coldrick), who has now left the Chamber, apparently objected to these Schemes and the granting of public money to the industry on the ground that the price of fish was excessive; and he also questioned whether the grant should be made because there appeared to be over-fishing and more fish were being caught than were being consumed.
That is not really the principle on which food production has been assisted by the Government. I would point out that this Scheme should be thought of as being of a similar type to many Orders which we have passed to assist the agricultural industry, because fishing and agriculture are the two primary sources of our food supply, and this Scheme, in so far as it helps in the building of fishing boats, encourages the fishing industry and helps to provide food which we can produce ourselves rather than import food from abroad.
In so far as it does that, it helps us in our balance of payments problem, because the more food we can produce for ourselves without importing it the better. So far as this Scheme encourages that to happen, it is undoubtedly a very good thing. If more food can be produced by our fishing boats and we can have more fishing boats and all the other facilities referred to in this debate for freezing, the distribution of fish, and so on, this will encourage the market. Incidentally, I notice that no one has said anything about canning. I do not think that white fish are canned to any extent, but it is quite possible to can herring.
I think that all of us in this House welcome these two Schemes as one further step in assisting the fishing industry.

8.44 p.m.

Dame Irene Ward: I have listened to a large part of the debate and it has been borne in upon me that it will be very difficult for me to make the speech which I should like to make. I fully realise that I shall have to tread very carefully to keep within the rules of order.
May I start by saying that, like everybody else, I welcome these Schemes? The discussion which has developed has shown that it is very important that the Schemes should be followed subsequently by a full discussion of the needs and the future of the fishing industry.
The problem arises, how are we to find the time to discuss what is implicit in the Schemes? My hon. Friend the Member for Wycombe (Mr. John Hall) was ruled out of order when he began to discuss the quality and the price of fish. Should I be in order in pointing out that the fish which will be caught by these new boats, when they are built, will eventually be sold to the public? Incidentally, I think that Cornwall has done very well today. Hon. Members from Cornwall have been called to speak in considerable numbers. On the other hand, although grants have been made for the building of fishing vessels, only two orders have been placed in the port of North Shields.
If I understand the situation correctly, we have now a subsidy for the building of ships. We have even heard that the Government are prepared to consider the increased cost to the fishing industry as a result of the action of the National Coal Board and that we are to have a subsidy for coal. The trawler owners who fish from the port of North Shields say they cannot find berths in which to build the vessels. In my opinion, the whole picture of the fishing industry needs very serious discussion. Perhaps I may get back to the question of the quality and price of fish which will be caught when these boats are built.

Mr. Deputy-Speaker: The hon. Lady has already pointed out the difficulty she is in, and perhaps she had better get back to the Scheme.

Dame Irene Ward: I am getting back to the Scheme, because when these boats are built, as a result of the Scheme, they will be sailing in the near and middle waters catching fish. I am interested in what happens to the fish after it has been

landed. It is a very short distance from the boat to the quayside and that must surely come within the rules of order. The fish arrive in fine condition. Eating fish straight from a trawler which has been built as a result of this Scheme is quite a different matter from eating fish when it has reached the distant markets.

Mr. Deputy-Speaker: The hon. Lady is very ingenious about keeping in order, but merely connecting an argument with the boats mentioned in the Scheme does not bring the argument within the rules of order.

Dame Irene Ward: I am sorry that I cannot demonstrate in the Dining Room of the House of Commons the advantage of eating freshly-caught halibut compared with halibut which has been brought from the north-east coast by train or lorry to the kitchens here. I will not develop that point, because I fully realise that there is no need for me to say any more except to return to the point which I wish to make.
Those of us who are interested in the future of the fishing industry ought not to be hamstrung in the discussion of the fishing industry by the presentation of Schemes which give subsidies for the building of vessels. I notice that one of the Schemes is operated under the White Fish and Herring Industries Act. I think it is important that the White Fish Authority—and to some extent the Herring Board—in putting forward these Schemes should tell us what other advice it has given to the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food.
The Minister has such a difficult time with the Treasury that he has very little time to argue over the question of our fishing problems. I hope I am in order in saying that I have listened to the contribution made by hon. Gentlemen opposite and that I have no doubt that we shall have a winding-up speech from the Opposition Front Bench. However, I should like to point out that in "Challenge to Britain" the Opposition never mentioned the fishing industry at all—

Mr. Deputy-Speaker: The hon. Lady has covered a fairly wide scope, but she is certainly well beyond the Schemes now.

Dame Irene Ward: I made that point, Mr. Deputy-Speaker, because I was very anxious to get it in the OFFICIAL REPORT.

Mr. Deputy-Speaker: The hon. Lady should choose a more regular moment to do that.

Dame Irene Ward: I am seeking your wise guidance, Mr. Deputy-Speaker, as to the appropriate moment for talking about the fishing industry in general. Everybody who has taken part in the debate has managed to make one little point which was out of order. I have managed to make perhaps four points which were out of order. In welcoming the Schemes, what I want to know is when we will be able to do more than merely welcome Schemes. Everybody has been allowed to say it, so I suppose that I will be in order in saying that we depend on a virile, live, fishing fleet.
It is so difficult to keep in order that one would think that we were discussing a nationalised industry. I know that I must not stray to the question of coal, and I will not make any attempt to do so, but I feel that we might have one day set aside so that all of us can say something—

Mr. Deputy-Speaker: Order. That, too, does not arise on the Schemes.

Mr. John Hall: On a point of order. Is not it possible to go fairly wide on the white fish Scheme? The Explanatory Note says that this Scheme:
… differs from the previous scheme in that it requires the White Fish Authority in considering applications to have regard to the needs and interests of the white fish industry or the section thereof to which the applicant belongs.
If we are to consider the needs and interests of the industry, surely we must consider all these other matters as well.

Mr. Deputy-Speaker: We have certainly gone very wide off the Scheme already but, however wide we can go, we cannot discuss a timetable for a discussion of objects other than those mentioned in the Scheme.

Dame Irene Ward: I should be in order, of course, in arguing whether the money to be spent is wise expenditure or not. I think that I am on very firm ground if I base my argument on that. We are all very anxious to have an up-to-date, modern, fishing fleet. Indeed, it is absolutely essential that we should maintain such a fleet. Therefore, it is of the utmost importance to argue whether we are spending in the best possible way

the money which is available from the Treasury.
It seems to me that the White Fish Authority and those who control the herring industry have their minds fixed entirely on the building of vessels. It may be that that is because they have managed to make a little dent, through the Minister of Agriculture and the Secretary of State for Scotland, on the Treasury. Vessels mean something to the Treasury whereas marketing, deep-freezing and progressive modern industry on the shore are considerations probably beyond its ken.
If we look out to the far horizon, we are apt to forget about this little island, and it seems to me that in the proposal to spend almost unlimited money on subsidies and grants for building modern vessels, we have forgotten to consider whether it would not be better to limit our expenditure and ensure that the products of the vessels that are built are used in the best possible way, from the point of view of the people of this country and that of the money expended.
We have managed, in very difficult circumstances to make all the points we wanted to make. I only hope that when my hon. Friend replies, as most of the debate appears to have been out of order, he will, in fact, have a speech to make. The object of a Minister in winding up a debate is to answer the bouquets in proper phraseology, to deal with the criticisms and to encourage the people who produce what is needed as a result of the money we are proposing to spend.
By the way, if the Joint Under-Secretary of State for Scotland is to wind up this debate, shall I be in order in discussing why I, representing a port which is south of the Border, must have all the criticisms made by those who live south of the Border answered by someone who lives, as I prefer to think, on the wrong side of the Border? That does not seem to me to be a very good idea.
Nevertheless, I think the Joint Under-Secretary of State for Scotland is very interested in the fishing industry, because, as happened at the weekend, our fishing vessels and trawlers from North Shields are prohibited from going to sea because of the situation in Scotland. That is another matter in relation to fishing vessels which really does come within the terms of this Scheme.

Mr. Deputy-Speaker: I do not think that that comes within the terms of this Scheme, either.

Dame Irene Ward: Oh, yes, it does, Mr. Deputy-Speaker, because it is a question of a balanced fishing fleet, and the balance of the fishing fleet—

Mr. Deputy-Speaker: This Scheme has nothing to do with the balance of the fishing fleet. It makes provision for the building of it.

Dame Irene Ward: Yes, but it is important to understand that, in the interests of the economy, we should have as many vessels built in England as are built in Scotland. If we can have unlimited money spent in this way, it is really a very important and cogent point. My hon. Friend who is to reply to the debate was very helpful over our problem on the north-east coast, and I like to give Ministers a pat on the back when they deserve it. He really was very helpful. What I want to know is whether he can hold out to those of us on this side who are really interested in the future of the fishing industry any possibility that we shall have a day on which to discuss all the matters arising out of this very important industry.

8.59 p.m.

Mr. Osborne: I should like to make one or two observations, which I trust you, Mr. Deputy-Speaker, will feel are quite in order. Page 3 of the Scheme sets out the conditions for the payment of this money.
There are three conditions in the Scheme about which I should like to ask some questions. As custodians of the public purse, we are entitled to know whether public money is being wisely spent. It is our duty to see that it is not wasted. We have no right to sign blank cheques for any industry unless we are satisfied that the money is being well spent and that we are getting good value on behalf of the taxpayer.
The first condition is that
Applications shall be entertained only in respect of vessels or engines built or to be built in the United Kingdom.
Before a grant is made, is any comparison made between the cost of building in this country and the cost of building abroad? Is there any check on the amount of money that is spent on these vessels? I ask that because, as many

hon. Members will remember, in recent weeks we have lost quite good orders to foreign shipyards because they could build much cheaper than we could build.
It seems reasonable, therefore, before agreeing to the spending of this money, to ask, on behalf of the taxpayer, whether any check is made of the value we obtain for the money and whether the same kind of vessel can be bought cheaper abroad. If it can be bought cheaper, what is the margin between production costs in this country and costs overseas which causes the Authority to say that the boat must be purchased and built here at home?
I know that in ordering this work to be done at home we guarantee work and full employment, but there is a point beyond which public money should not be spent even for that very legitimate purpose. Has the Authority the right to spend money indiscriminately and buy as, when and where it likes, or is there any real check on the way the money is spent?
Paragraph 9 (3) contains perhaps the most important condition of all, for it provides that the vessel must be built so as to conform with modern ideas of comfort and security for the crew. Men who go out even in the new boats do a very hazardous and difficult job. In the old days many of them lived in the most abominable conditions. No matter how cheaply food might be produced, the catching of fish in such conditions should not be allowed in the future.
This paragraph refers to
… provision for the accommodation of officers and crew as the Authority may require …
This is very important to those of us who represent constituencies where fishermen live. What scheme of inspection by the White Fish Authority does the Minister insist upon? How does the Minister know that the Authority is doing its work in this respect? How far is he sure that the new vessels which we are now authorising to be built shall be of such specifications as to provide the men who work them with decent conditions? Even vessels limited to 140 feet in length can be used for long-distance fishing and men are away on these trips for anything from ten to twenty-one days. If men are to go out fishing in difficult seas at the risk of their lives they should have decent conditions in which to live and work.
This is a very important point. No one has yet touched on it, but it goes to the heart of the matter. If we cannot show that public money is spent to provide the most decent conditions, we cannot expect money to be spent by private individuals to provide better standards. I should like to hear from my hon. Friend exactly what is done. It is laid down that the Authority shall insist that the accommodation shall conform to the best modern practices appropriate to the class of vessel concerned. What exactly does that mean? Is my hon. Friend satisfied that the Authority has insisted that the new vessels we are helping to build are in conformity with the spirit of this Scheme?
Paragraph 10 (4) states that
Any person authorised in writing by the Board shall have the right to inspect a vessel …
How often is that right exercised? In the last two years we have spent a lot of public money on such schemes as this. Who inspects the vessels as they are being built? How often does someone go to see what is being done? Who inspects the vessels after they have been built to ensure that what is required under paragraph 3 has been achieved? Who issues the authority? Is he satisfied that this inspection work is properly carried out?
Without wishing to offend hon. Friends of mine who represent Scottish constituencies, may I say that the White Fish Authority was established to cover the whole industry, 70 per cent. of which is located in the two great ports of the Humber? Since a good deal of the finance, other than that provided by these grants, comes from the trade at the Humber ports, to what extent have those ports received orders from the Authority under this Scheme for the building of this type of vessel in the last two years?
To what extent have they been given grants? It seems unreasonable that the English taxpayer, who has to pay nine-tenths of the money under this Scheme, should have only a small proportion of the money spent in his country. I do not know, but it may be that the Scottish taxpayers who provide one-tenth of the money are getting nine-tenths of the benefit. I wish to know to what extent that is true and how far the two Humber ports, the real mainstay of the industry,

are getting a fair crack of the whip under this Scheme.
I am grateful to you, Mr. Deputy-Speaker, for not having ruled me out of order. I have tried to keep within the bounds of order and I trust that I have succeeded in putting some of the practical questions which, I think, should be asked when we are spending public money. I feel that the back benchers on both sides of the House acquiesce too freely in the spending of public money. We squeal about it only once a year, at the time of the Budget. We should insist that the money we are granting is spent wisely and well and that the taxpayers we represent get good value for it.

9.10 p.m.

Mr. Edward Short: I want to say a word or two in support of the hon. Lady for Tynemouth (Dame Irene Ward), and I am sorry she has left the Chamber. The point on which I wish to comment was her plea for additional assistance for North Sea owners. While this Scheme is very good, we feel that it certainly does not do nearly sufficient to help the port of North Shields, and I will explain why. North Shields is probably the major fishing port in the north-east of England, and unless some additional financial assistance is given to the building of fishing vessels, a port of this kind will pass out of existence altogether.
In 1939, 59 fishing vessels fished from North Shields. A very large number of these were requisitioned during the war, and when the war was over only 39 returned to North Shields. Since the end of the war these 39 vessels have diminished to 26. All the vessels using the port at present were built between 1914 and 1918.
It must be appreciated that as the years go by these old vessels will disappear and it will leave the port of North Shields entirely dependent for fish on what comes overland from other places to auctioned there. In fact, if it were not for the fish brought from other places overland, very often no fish would be on sale today at North Shields at all. It is an important centre for the buying of fish. No fewer than 450 fishmongers use the port from day to day and, in addition to that, 30 wholesale merchants go there.


Fish is bought for the London market and also supplied throughout the northern counties.
The people in the four northern counties have been educated over the years to eat North Shields fish, which is of a high quality. As I have said, the greater part of it will be auctioned, and it means that when supplies are short—and they often are because of the shortage of vessels—the price in the north-east increases considerably. This is a matter which has been reported to the White Fish Authority, but while that Authority can give to trawler vessels and potential buyers of boats grants and loans at cheap rates of interest, and while it can do everything possible to encourage the purchase of new vessels, it cannot, of course, force owners to build new ships.
The White Fish Authority gives loans at the rate of 4 per cent. as well as grants to potential builders, but such a builder is faced with the biggest single item, the deposit, and also with a very big obstacle, the insurance. We know the high cost of a modern vessel, and I will in a minute give an example of the burden of insurance on the purchase of a new vessel. In fact, some buyers actually pay more in insurance than they do in repayment of the loan. Of course, it is a stipulation that the applicant for a grant or loan for assistance must keep his vessel insured, but the vessels that would normally attract the young fisherman, who had saved sufficient to pay the deposit, have risen considerably in price since the Authority's grant and loan scheme came into operation.
Let me give one example. A vessel for seine net fishing which cost in 1950 £5,500, today, only five years later, costs £7,500. In those five years there has been an increase of £2,000, but the earning power of such a vessel has not increased appreciably in that period. Running costs are also very much higher, so that that extra £2,000 at 8 per cent.—that is, 4 per cent. for insurance and 4 per cent. for the loan—presents a tremendous additional burden to any young fisherman who is trying to start on his own. That is a burden which many young men are quite unable to bear today.
It would appear that the insurance companies have received a great deal of benefit as a result of the grant and loan

scheme. I believe that as much as a quarter of all the money spent on new building since the war has gone to the insurance companies. I am sure it will be appreciated that today the cost of building is very high indeed. In addition to the deposit, the young fisherman starting up on his own has to provide perhaps £500 worth of gear. If, of course, he is the potential buyer of a modern steam or diesel trawler, then the costs are really tremendous. Such a vessel costs today round about £100,000, and, in addition, an owner has to find anything from £1,000 to £2,000 for gear. That applies to North Shields, and, I understand, to Milford Haven and to many other ports as well.
I propose to make one or two concrete suggestions because, as I said in my opening remarks, I and many of my hon. Friends feel that this Scheme does not go far enough. Something must be done to help the old fishing ports which are serving a big industrial area with dilapidated old boats. Could not the Government cover the insurance so far as the grant and loan scheme is concerned because the 4 per cent. insurance is really a tremendous burden on young men desiring to start up in fishing? Will not the Government see if they can cover that?

Mr. Osborne: Permanently?

Mr. Short: If not permanently, at any rate for the time being. Could not there be something like the Highland Fund Limited in Scotland which gives assistance to fishermen by providing the initial 15 per cent., or could not the Government get the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food to try, perhaps, to interest owners of vessels in Hull and Grimsby to transfer some of their boats to North Shields? As the representative not of North Shields, but of an adjoining constituency, I say that unless the Government do something to assist this old fishing port it will in a few years time quite certainly die as a fishing port.

9.19 p.m.

Mr. Henderson Stewart: This debate has covered a somewhat longer period than some of us imagined it would. It has given a number of hon. Members on both sides of the House an opportunity to introduce a lot of interesting topics with, perhaps, a little difficulty, but, nevertheless, with ultimate success. I


must endeavour as best I can to answer the questions put to me, and, at the same time, to remain within reasonable bounds of order.
The debate began with an interesting speech by the hon. and learned Member for Kettering (Mr. Mitchison), whose personal interest is, of course, that he happens to have a house in Argyllshire. He asked me about the condition of the men and the boats in his area, a matter which was also raised by my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Argyll (Sir D. McCallum), who brought to the subject an acute personal knowledge gained over a long period of experience.
Quite naturally, the hon. and learned Member for Kettering drew attention to the increasing costs that the fishermen have to meet, not only in respect of the boats but also the nets and gear. He asked whether it would not be possible to incorporate into this or a similar scheme a provision for grants for the purchase of nets. As he knows, we make available to fishermen loans for the purchase of nets, but it has always been thought that, nets being perishable goods in the sense that they are used tonight, this month and this year and wear out—after which new nets have to be found—they should be regarded as part of the working expenses of the boats; and grants were never intended for that purpose. I do not think that either the Authority or the Board has changed its mind upon that matter.
The hon. and learned Member asked whether we could do something to give greater assistance in providing new engines for boats. As he knows, under Section 2 (2) of the 1953 Act the White Fish Authority—and the same applies to the Herring Industry Board—is limited in the proportion of the total cost of engines which it can provide. The subsection reads as follows:
… the amount of the grant which may be made in respect of any such expenditure shall not exceed three-tenths of that expenditure or one thousand two hundred and fifty pounds, whichever is the less.
That is in respect of the acquisition of new engines. I do not think that that can be said to be a niggling or cheese-paring grant. It is a rather substantial one.
I was glad to find that the hon. and learned Member, after his first slightly critical remarks, concluded by paying a

tribute to the sympathy with which the Herring Industry Board, in particular, is doing its job among fishermen in the Campbeltown district. My hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Argyll has more than once approached me about the lot of these ring net fishermen in Campbeltown. The trouble with the west coast of Scotland and the Campbeltown district is that whereas in the past herring fishermen made good livings by ring net fishing, in recent years the herring have disappeared from that area.
For the last few years the fishermen have been having a rather thin time. It is a very odd thing that these herring leave certain areas. In the 1930s, in my area—the Firth of Forth—the winter herring fishing was of enormous importance and value to people all round the east coast. Hering have now completely vanished from that part of the sea. The same thing appears to have happened in the area represented by my hon. and gallant Friend. In his case the herring have not entirely disappeared, but their numbers have been very considerably reduced.
As a result, some of my hon. and gallant Friend's constituents are finding that the old ring net method of herring fishing is no longer as profitable as it used to be, and they are gradually turning over to seine net white fishing. The financial problem facing them is of taking the step from the purchase of the ring net boat to the purchase of the white fish boat, or the adaptation of one from the other. I have taken up this problem with the Board and the Authority. I have written to my hon. and gallant Friend about the matter, and have invited him to send me particulars of cases of hardship which may come to his notice. Like the hon. and learned Member for Kettering, I believe that the Board and the Authority are showing considerable sympathy for the case of men situated as are some of my hon. and gallant Friend's constituents, and I hope that such sympathy will always be shown.
My hon. Friend the Member for Aberdeenshire, East (Sir R. Boothby) asked me one or two questions which I must endeavour to answer. He referred me to the share system, particularly in the herring industry, and asked me whether I thought it was still a good one to operate. He put that question to me


some time ago, and I informed him in the House that we had invited the Herring Industry Board to examine that point and one or two other points. I assure my hon. Friend that the Herring Board is examining it. As soon as it has views to convey to us I will take an opportunity to convey them to the House and to my hon. Friend. I spent a long afternoon with the full Herring Industry Board last Friday, and this matter was one of those which were considered.
I will come back to the point about quick freezing in a moment. My hon. Friend asked me whether we had succeeded in making a deal with Russia for the sale of herring. Perhaps I may be allowed to say just two or three words in answer to my hon. Friend. The Herring Industry Board tell me that terms have now been agreed for the sale of 135,000 barrels of cured herring with the Soviet Union, and that a contract is to be signed in the next few days.

Sir R. Boothby: Hurrah.

Mr. Stewart: I hope that not only my hon. Friend but other hon. Members will be pleased about that.
The question of dealing with gluts was raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Banff (Mr. Duthie). I confess that I am in some difficulty. I would very much like to deal in detail with the question of oil and meal factories and quick freezing. I will try to answer some of the points which have been made. I will come back to them when I deal with the question by my hon. Friend the Member for Banff.
The small man and the rate of interest on loans was referred to by the hon. Member for Lowestoft (Mr. Edward Evans). That point was also mentioned by the hon. Member for Newcastle-upon-Tyne, Central (Mr. Short). I do not know. I can only say that the rates of interest for the loans that are given to fishermen have not yet been brought to my notice as a matter of complaint. My hon. Friend the Joint Parliamentary Secretary showed at the beginning of the debate that a large number of boats had been built as the result of these loans and grants, and that a considerable number were still being built. Orders are still coming along and new boats are still being put upon the stocks. I can only think that the fishermen or groups of

fishermen who build these boats think they are a worthwhile proposition. I hope that the hon. Gentleman will not think me discourteous in saying that I am not greatly impressed with the strength of that particular criticism.

Mr. Short: The Joint Under-Secretary of State knows a good deal about this matter. Does he not agree that the rate of replacement of boats is not nearly quick enough, and that the large deposit, plus the interest rate, plus the 4 per cent., act as a considerable deterrent to the replacement of ageing fishing vessels?

Mr. Stewart: I agree. We want to replace ageing fishing vessels more quickly than before. I am very sorry that North Shields has not taken advantage of the scheme. It is at their disposal, as it has been at all other ports, and if some of us in the North and South have adopted and taken advantage of the plan it should be an example to the hon. Member's friends. I would warmly recommend them to take that advantage of it; it is well worth while.

Sir R. Boothby: Too slow.

Mr. Stewart: I did not want to say "too slow," but my hon. Friend the Member for Aberdeenshire, East always hits the nail on the head.
I shall pass on the suggestion for herring bars, which was made by the hon. Member for Lowestoft, to the Herring Industry Board. The hon. Member for Yarmouth (Mr. Fell) was concerned to know the meaning of paragraph 8 of the Scheme. As he says, paragraph 8 puts a duty upon the Herring Industry Board to take account of the general circumstances of the herring industry or of that part of it which an applicant represents, but he wanted fuller explanation as to the meaning of the paragraph.
If I may revert to the case of herring, surely it is right that the Herring Industry Board should consider not only the individual applicant—should consider whether he is a good man, a good skipper and not just a man of straw—but should also consider the state of the industry as a whole, and the state of that section of the industry. Is it wise for instance, to continue giving more grants for ring net boats? I ask that in view of the somewhat parlous condition of the ring net fishing industry in the west of Scotland.


It is that kind of consideration which the paragraph suggests should be in the minds of the Herring Industry Board. I hope that my hon. Friend the Member for Yarmouth may feel that that is the explanation he sought.

Mr. Fell: That is not quite a satisfactory answer, because, paragraph 5 says:
Applicants for grants as aforesaid shall be required to satisfy the Board with regard to the prospect of their being able to operate a fishing vessel successfully.
I really do not think that what my hon. Friend has said is the answer at all. It was because I did not think my hon. Friend the Joint Parliamentary Secretary had given the complete answer that I asked my hon. Friend, and, quite honestly, I think that his answer now is, once again, quite wrong.

Mr. Stewart: Then I am sure it is my fault. The paragraph reads as my hon. Friend has said. A few moments ago I said that one of the considerations was whether the applicant was a man of straw, or a good fisherman—a good skipper. That is one of the considerations. But I also said that that should not be the only consideration. The Board must take into account the general state of the industry. For example, one hon. Member asked the very proper question, "Are you sure that you are not building too many new boats?" In any particular section of the industry we might one day reach a point when there were too many boats in it.
My hon. Friend the Member for Aberdeenshire, East and I remember very well the position in the 'thirties, when the Duncan Commission was set up and found that there were too many boats, and that they could not all make a living. Such a position would be one of great difficulty and one which would bring great hardship to the whole industry. I hope that I have allayed the anxiety of my hon. Friend the Member for Yarmouth on that particular matter.
The hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr. Grimond) took the rather different view that—as I understood him—there should not be any restriction on the number of boats. This does not suggest a distinction, but I have tried to say that each application should be regarded not as just one boat but as part of the

whole. If there is a case in the Shetland area for the substitution of more old boats by new boats, as the hon. Gentleman says, that is exactly what the White Fish Authority and the Herring Industry Board want to do. Of course, they could experiment with new types of boats, as the hon. Member said.
The White Fish Authority has recently set up a committee, in conjunction with the industry and Government research departments, to inquire into this matter of new types of boats, and no doubt in due course the Authority will tell us the result of these experiments. I should like the House to recognise that the Authority is very much alive to the need to keep abreast of new methods in boat building.
I think it was the hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland who raised the question of second-hand boats. I appreciate his point, but we are in a difficulty here. This Scheme was originally and still is intended to substitute old out-of-date boats with new boats, and if we start playing about with the problem and saying, "We will do away with that old boat and substitute another boat, not quite so old but still old," that would avoid the purpose of this Scheme. This Scheme is intended to produce new, up-to-date, modern, efficient, economically-run boats.

Mr. Osborne: Is the policy of scrapping and building insisted upon?

Mr. Stewart: No, there is no such scheme, but by and large, as my hon. Friend knows and as the figures demonstrate, more and more old boats are going out of commission every year and more and more new boats are being brought in. While there is no scrap-and-build scheme as such, in effect we are getting something like that.
The hon. and learned Member for Aberdeen, North (Mr. Hector Hughes) raised a number of interesting points. Unfortunately, he is not now in the Chamber. He told us about an interesting correspondence which he had had with the Chairman of the Scottish Committee of the White Fish Authority, Captain Allan. I was glad that the hon. and learned Member paid a tribute to Captain Allan, because he and his Committee deserve the thanks of all Scottish Members for the splendid work that they have done in the last year or two.
I entirely agree with Captain Allan that we are all disappointed that the trawler owners in Aberdeen have not taken more advantage of this Scheme. While nobody wants to lecture anybody, I would say to my friends the trawler owners there that they really ought to think again about this matter. They have the Scottish Committee of the White Fish Authority very much at their disposal, anxious to help them and advise them, and they have also this very generous financial scheme. On the other hand, they have an ageing fleet in Aberdeen, far too large and far too old, and I should like my friends there to consider carefully whether they are wise to ignore the prospects which are held out to them.
I must make an apology to my hon. Friend the Member for Bodmin (Mr. D. Marshall). Earlier in the debate I made a mistake, and I must now say in public, and with all the authority that I can, that dog fish are, in fact, white fish. My hon. Friend said that he wanted grants for remodernising old vessels. There are loans available for that purpose, by which an oil engine can be substituted for a steam engine or something of that sort.

Mr. D. Marshall: What about an echo-sounder?

Mr. Stewart: No, an echo-sounder is generally part of the equipment of a new boat, and, therefore, a grant is available. The case of providing an echo-sounder in an old boat is like the case of the nets; loans are available. I would recommend people in that position who want many improvements to buy a new boat.

Mr. Grimond: Is that not rather an expensive way of going about it?

Mr. Stewart: My hon. Friend the Member for Banff made a characteristically well-informed and passionate speech about the lot of his friends in the North. His real trouble—and here I am in great difficulty—was that he criticised the provision of the Herring Industry Board for dealing with gluts. There have been two gluts in Scotland in the last months, and two occasions when the fleet has had to be held in. It is quite natural that my hon. Friend and many of us should have said to ourselves, "Has the Board the right provision for dealing with gluts? Are there enough meal and oil factories, and should there not be more freezing

plants set up?" I cannot say much about this, but, briefly, let me say that I would welcome the opportunity to give a full explanation. I saw the Board on this matter on Friday, and we went into it with the greatest care.
The truth is that in this kind of glut, with this particular type of herring, produced in that hot weather, it is not possible for a man or any organisation fully to cope with it. One of the real difficulties is that the scientists have not yet made available to us a chemical which will preserve herrings for a period of days, and maybe weeks, when they are landed in vast numbers. If we can get the scientists to help us by producing a preservative, it would be the greatest single boon to the Herring Industry Board.
As to quick freezing I would only say that my hon. Friend should know that the difficulty about quick freezing—and the hon. Member for Lowestoft put his finger upon it—is this. It is no good having all kinds of quick-freezing plant if we cannot sell the article when we have frozen it. The Herring Board finds that it is not getting a market for its quick frozen herring, nor is there any big firm in this country willing to buy it. The main task of the Board is to persuade the public and, in particular, the merchants to buy more frozen herring. When that is done we shall see a considerable advance. I am sorry that I cannot say more about this, as I should like to do, for reasons which my hon. Friend will understand.

Mr. Duthie: Will my hon. Friend agree that frozen herring could be used for the extraction of oil and meal in times when no herrings are landed? They could also be used for kippering, canning and other processes.

Mr. Stewart: I am well aware of that. As my hon. Friend the Member for Aberdeenshire, East will know, the merchants of Fraserburgh came to the Board only a week or two ago with a scheme for a quick-freezing plant there. They met me when I was up there, and I thought that the scheme had some possibilities.
I should like to put it to the House—and I think that hon. Members will agree—that the trade must co-operate with the Board in this matter. It is not right to leave the Herring Board to do everything for this great industry. Private enterprise,


if it has any guts at all, ought to do something about it. I am sure that will please the hon. Member for Cardiff, South-East (Mr. Callaghan) and I am also sure that we should all get on a great deal better if the merchants, the fishermen, the public, the shopkeepers and those in processing would all feel that they had a part to play. My hon. Friend the Member for St. Ives (Mr. G. R. Howard) also raised the question of quick freezing, but I must leave the matter there.
As to fishery protection boats in that part of the world, I shall have to ask the Joint Parliamentary Secretary about that. I do not know whether there are fishery protection boats at St. Ives or not, but I am sure that my hon. Friend will know all about it. My hon. Friend the Member for St. Ives wants more.
The hon. Member for Bristol, North-East (Mr. Coldrick) dealt with the oil and meal subsidy. He seems to be under a misapprehension. The oil and meal subsidy and the factory building programme of the Board are so arranged that we expect that in two years' time the need for that subsidy will completely disappear and the oil and meal processing system will pay for itself and stand on its own feet.
My hon. Friend the Member for Wycombe (Mr. John Hall) made some very interesting remarks about the kind of boat needed. We have taken careful note of what he said and I assure him that we will examine it.
I noted what my hon. Friend the Member for Truro (Mr. G. Wilson) said about the boat building industry and I rather agree with his views, My hon. Friend the Member for Tynemouth (Dame Irene Ward) made a magnificent speech in circumstances of great difficulty. I know she was in difficulty over the week-end because the port in which she is interested was closed, like some other ports in the north, but it was open on Saturday morning and I hope that she does not feel too unhappy about the situation.
My hon. Friend the Member for Louth (Mr. Osborne) was strictly in order all through the debate, which was a remarkable achievement. He asked me a number of questions about paragraph 9 of the White Fish Scheme. First, he asked about the cost of building and wanted me to tell him whether the White Fish Authority

check the cost of a new boat, as built in Holland, say, with that of a boat built in this country. I think the answer is, "No." This is a Scheme to enable boats to be built for British fishermen in British yards. I am sure that the White Fish Authority and the Herring Board take every reasonable precaution to see that the prices are reasonable, but I do not think we can say more about it than that.

Mr. Osborne: This is rather important, because we are authorising the expenditure of public money. It is a very important principle for the House of Commons. My hon. Friend says there is no check. Surely there must be a limit to the extent to which boats can be built in this country at a price exceeding that at which they could be built abroad. Surely my hon. Friend is not telling the House that he gives the White Fish Authority power to spend what it likes in building boats in this country merely because hey are built in this country.

Mr. Stewart: There is a limit which fixed by the common sense of the members of the White Fish Authority. I have no doubt that the wise remarks of my hon. Friend the Member for Louth will be noted by the Authority.

Sir R. Boothby: I hope not.

Mr. Stewart: The White Fish Authority will keep its eyes on this matter and if prices for British boats are, on the whole, much too high it will be able to do something about it.
I was asked how we checked the work of the Authority. The Authority is given certain duties; how do we know that it is performing its duties? I do not think it is right that I should have to go snooping around to see that the Authority is doing its duty. I do not think that is the job of a Government Department. We have faith in the Authority and in the Herring Board, and we must leave it there.
My hon. Friend asked who inspects the vessels. The officials of the White Fish Authority and the Herring Board inspect the vessels during building to see whether they are in accordance with the plans. After they have been built they are inspected in order to see that they are being properly used.
I do not know whether sufficient vessels are being built in the Humber ports.


Perhaps my hon. Friend knows and there are not sufficient he will perhaps get them busy to see that more boats are built there.
I think I have covered almost all the speeches except that of the hon. Member for Newcastle-upon-Tyne, Central, who talked about North Shields and asked a number of very interesting questions, particularly about the cost of insurance. I do not know whether lie is right about the large amount of money which has gone to insurance, but I think he will agree that a Government Department or an authority like the White Fish Authority must have its vessels insured by the men who get them. If a vessel is lost or something goes wrong and an accident takes place, the Authority has to be reasonably sure of getting back the money which it has lent for the building of the boat.
Insurance is really a very necessary condition. It is arguable, I suppose, that the cost of insurance is dearer than it should be, but on the principle of insurance I do not think that the hon. Member would wish to quarrel with us. As to whether there should be a Highland fund round about North Shields, I do not know.

Dame Irene Ward: I hope that my hon. Friend will forgive me if I make it clear that the hon. Member for Newcastle-upon-Tyne, Central (Mr. Short) does not speak for North Shields, that I have already made my speech, and that the hon. Member just came in because he wanted to do a little tit-for-tat when I said that the Labour Party did not mention fishing at all in "Challenge to Britain." That is the whole answer to the intervention by the hon. Member for Newcastle-upon-Tyne, Central.

Mr. Short: We have listened to a great deal of nonsense from the hon. Lady. Is it in order, Mr. Speaker, to impute motives in that sort of way?

Dame Irene Ward: The hon. Gentleman does not speak for North Shields.

Mr. Speaker: I did not gather that the hon. Lady was more abusive than usual.

Mr. Short: The hon. Lady does not speak for most of North Shields, either.

Dame Irene Ward: Yes, I do.

Mr. Stewart: I am sure that my hon. Friend the Member for North Shields is well able to look after herself.

Dame Irene Ward: I am not the Member for North Shields.

Mr. Stewart: I hope that the House may feel that it has spent a useful few hours upon these very important measures. I ask all Members to believe that these Schemes, intended to extend the grants and loans for the building of fishing vessels, are really Schemes of very great importance to this national industry. The proof is the work that has already been achieved, and the assurance I give on behalf of the Government is that we will do our utmost to speed up the work by making more efficient, and therefore more profitable, the work of the fishermen.

Question put and agreed to.

Resolved,
That the White Fish Industry (Grants for Fishing Vessels and Engines) Scheme, 1955, a copy of which was laid before this House on 29th June, be approved.

Resolved,
That the Herring Industry (Grants for Fishing Vessels and Engines) Scheme, 1955, a copy of which was laid before this House on 29th June, be approved.—[Mr. Henderson Stewart.]

NATIONAL SERVICE

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Colonel J. H. Harrison.]

9.53 p.m.

Mr. George Craddock: I want to talk about National Service and, before doing so, I should like to say that I have made inquiries and found that I cannot move against conscription because conscription is governed by Act of Parliament and can be removed only by a further Act of Parliament. However, I understand that it is in order to seek a reduction in the period of National Service. I consider that to ask for a 12 months' reduction is not asking for too much. I say that after having given the matter considerable thought and having contacted many civil Departments during the week-end.
I suggest that, in present circumstances, having regard to the Geneva Conference, one can quite easily come forward to the House and ask for a reduction of 12 months. I hope that, notwithstanding that, the Minister will give consideration to the whole matter. I hope that he might be forthcoming tonight and give us the date when conscription will end.
If we are to believe the professions of faith at Geneva, I am sure that the time is ripe when one of the steps taken at a conference like that at Geneva or at the United Nations should be to give people, young people especially, the freedom which they ought to have. After all, I think it merely coincides with the policy of the present Government. I noticed at the last Election and prior to it that they were standing for a policy to set the people free, and I cannot see why they cannot do something for our young folk.
If the Minister would be good enough to announce the date when conscription will end, I am sure that such news will travel throughout the world and he will go down to posterity as a man to be revered who helped to restore sanity to a crazy world. One cannot help wondering in these days, with the tremendous possibilities for a good life, why so much money, so much energy, so much time and so much waste of life are used up to no purpose whatever.
Fundamentally, I do not believe that military adventure resolves any of the

problems of mankind or resolves any difficulties at all between the peoples. I am certain of this—and one need not know much about it to realise this—that after wars more problems are created which, in the end, lead to further wars, and there are plenty of examples which one could give. We also find from recent history what is particularly unfortunate—that allies today become enemies tomorrow. Now this is very strange, and I cannot understand why it is always said of people who are seeking peace that they are wrong or that they are suspect. Why, I do not know. I do not know why authority always has to trail around saying that militarism or support of the idea is patriotism, because it is not.
Then, we find that following a war, in addition to the deaths during the war, poverty, disease, waste and hatred, which, are the common factors which follow from war, are the matters which have to be cleared up and for which the people have to pay a high price.
During the last 40 years, the people of this country have had bitter experiences arising from the failure of Governments to discharge their responsibilities humanely, and that is a statement not only concerning this country. I want to say tonight that I am taking a much broader view than the narrow boundaries of nationalism. There must be a different view. There must be views at international conferences of the kind which I call a type of international talking which can be understood by the people everywhere. As I said to the former Prime Minister, it is no use having international conferences if we are to argue national views. If we are arguing national sufficiency, we shall never be successful at international conferences. We must argue internationalism and attempt to serve the whole of mankind. That is the line that I take. It is the line that many of my colleagues take, and I believe that it is the line that the common people want everywhere.
I frankly disbelieve that a political cult is responsible for the position we are in today. In my view, the real evil which besets mankind is militarism. I want that to be very clearly understood. It is the desire for territorial expansion, the struggle for raw materials and generally for national self-sufficiency at the expense of others. It does not matter how we dress it up, that is precisely what it is.

It being Ten o'Clock, the Motion for the Adjournment of the House lapsed, without Question put.

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Studholme.]

Mr. Craddock: That gave me a little shock.
All the combatants have never failed to invoke God's goodness and humanity at the same time as they have thrown the youth of the ages into battle, and those youth's remains have been left in all parts of the world. I believe that we have reached a period in history when a new approach to solve the problems of mankind must be made, for science, known and not yet fully comprehended, places mankind in deadly peril. In this situation, why not reduce conscription through international understanding? Why do not the Government take steps to promote a reduction in national service in the various countries where it is in operation? I cannot understand why we have to have a longer period of national service than the French, the Dutch and the Belgians. We trade on the fact that we are generous in our treatment of people, but we are not. We are no different from other people. It is not on what we say but on what we do that people base their judgments.
All the political leaders now frankly confess that in any future war not only the combatants but the neutrals likewise will be at the mercy of science. There can be no victors. All will be losers. In such circumstances, why is it impossible that we should reduce the period of service now? Surely it is now that just the opportunity is presented to make possible a reduction in the period of two years. It is often said in the House that we must have a continuing two years' period of service, for the simple reason that we have a vast Commonwealth to look after and we have many outposts.
We shall not keep a Commonwealth on the basis of force. We shall keep a Commonwealth on the basis of reciprocity, real understanding and through partnership, and in no other way. I am pretty disgusted with the attitude of the Secretary of State for the Colonies towards those parts of the Commonwealth for which he is responsible. I do not think that we have played the part which we ought to have played in many parts of

the Commonwealth. Why is it necessary that we should have an Army to keep the Commonwealth in step with the mother country? I do not understand that process of reasoning at all. We have to forge a link of understanding between the peoples of the Commonwealth. If we do that, we shall keep them in step with us.
Conscription is a denial of the fundamental rights of man. It exacts a tribute from those who are called upon to serve which is unworthy of modern society. It retards progress in many forms, particularly by arresting youth in its development. I do not want young men in this country or in any other to die for their country. I want young men all over the world to live for their country and for the good of humanity. I believe that they are the people who have a contribution to make. We should do all we can in their early formative years to see to it that they have the necessary aids for a full, decent and secure life. I would appeal to the Minister to see his right hon. Friend with a view to securing that this great benefit will be copied in many other countries if we only give a lead.
I am concerned with the development of the faculties of our young people and in providing them with all the conditions which make for a more secure life. I have been listening to the debates today, mainly about fish, and yet we are going to take only about 21 minutes tonight on peace and National Service.
In 1954, we spent £1,659 million on defence. This world spent £43,000 million, or £17 per head of the world population. We ought to do something about transferring much of that money into other more fruitful channels for the benefit of mankind. As it is impossible for any country to be a victor in a future war, why do we not do something in order to detract from that which is bad and focus attention on what is good.
I was struck by a statement made to the Press by the Foreign Secretary on what took place at Geneva. I read it in today's "Manchester Guardian," and I should like to quote it because I think it is very important. The right hon. Gentleman said:
We have had a very strenuous week, both at the official meetings and at the unofficial gatherings. The Four Powers have met in conference together. They have met jointly and they have met separately. Their


main conclusion I think can be formed.' Here Mr. Macmillan smiled, and then declared, 'There ain't gonna be any war.'
If there is not going to be any war, why take our men into the Services for two years? He went on to say:
'This is based upon the now accepted fact that, in nuclear warfare, there can be no victor. The second conclusion is that there are a lot of very difficult problems to settle which will take time. The very fact that war is excluded means that the problems of the world have got to be solved by peaceful means and by an acceptance of the new conditions of these times.'
I sincerely hope the Government are prepared to look at this matter again because so far they have not been ready to do anything about it. I hope they will believe that what has happened points to the necessity for something being done. The parents of young men of 18 write letters to their Members of Parliament, and I hope they will shower hundreds of thousands of such letters on hon. Members so as to make the Government wake up to the fact that it is time something was done in this age of comparative peace to reduce the period of National Service by at least twelve months.

10.10 p.m.

Mr. Victor Yates: For ten years I have consistently opposed compulsory National Service in this House. I understood and realised the many argument advanced in favour of it during the period immediately after the war. But we must remember that compulsory National Service was first introduced by Mr. Neville Chamberlain in 1939 and that conscription has continued for sixteen years. The youth of today have no idea of the conditions of freedom that were fully understood before the war.
The position was made quite clear in September, 1950, during the period of the Labour Government and at the time when compulsory National Service was increased from 18 months to two years. My hon. Friends and myself opposed that increase. I have before me the OFFICIAL REPORT of the debates of that time. My right hon. Friend the Member for Dundee, West (Mr. Strachey), who was then Secretary of State for War, gave a clear indication that the period of compulsory service had been increased because of the war in Korea from 18 months to two years. He gave a clear assurance to the House that that period

would be reduced as soon as circumstances permitted. He went on to say that it would be abolished altogether when circumstances permitted. This was in September, 1950.
My right hon. Friend the Member for Easington (Mr. Shinwell) was equally forthright in giving that clear pledge to the House. He said:
If we find, in the course of perhaps, 12 months, maybe 18 months, or within the period mentioned in the new Clause, that we can revise the position, I assure the Committee that that will be done."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 15th September, 1950; Vol. 478, c. 1504.]
My right hon. and hon. Friends gave a clear indication that they would honour this pledge, and I believe that were a Labour Government in power today, the international situation having changed so considerably, they would not only have instituted the necessary inquiry but would have come to the conclusion that the period of National Service should be reduced very considerably.
We argue that conscription interferes with the careers of our young people. Social workers know the effect it has upon their moral welfare. From time to time we have submitted to the Government examples of National Service men who have been completely wasting their time, but we seem to get no response. I have here a communication from the Electrical Trades Union in Birmingham quoting a case of a National Service man who was an electrical worker. His work included the provision of electrical installations in new houses—televisions, irons, fires, washing machines, cookers and vacuum cleaners.
He asked to go into his own trade while in the Services and was told that he must sign on for three years. When he went to Cardington he was told that even for three years he could be only an administrative orderly, a batman, a waiter or a storeman. If he wished to carry on with his electrical trade, he would be obliged to sign on for five years. The union submitted this case to me and only this morning I received a letter of protest from his father, who points out that his son has wasted three years of his life. Of course, if he can, this young man will go back to his electrical trade, but he has wasted three valuable years of his life. Many examples could be given of men who are wasting their time in the Services.
Today, if it is to have economic survival, the nation is in need of the productive capacity of all its young men. They should not be chained, but should be free to produce in industry so that the country may overcome its economic difficulties. Surely, with the international situation clearly moving in favour of a peaceful understanding, the situation should enable us to move towards a positive reduction of compulsory National Service as a first step towards its ultimate abolition.
I trust that the Government will be forthcoming on the subject. Even if they cannot agree to a reduction in the period of National Service at the present time, will they tell us why they object to an inquiry and to giving the House the facts so that we may be in a position to tell the country that it can look forward to the freeing of its youth?

10.15 p.m.

The Under-Secretary of State for War (Mr. Fitzroy Maclean): Both the hon. Member for Bradford, South (Mr. George Craddock) and the hon. Member for Lady-wood (Mr. V. Yates) have made it quite clear that what they want is not so much a reduction in the term of National Service as its complete abolition; that they regard it as something which is morally wrong. That is an argument which we have often heard before. It is a view of which we respect the sincerity in the same way as we respect the sincerity of hon. Members who go a stage further and say that armed forces should be done away with altogether. But it is a view that we can accept no more than could the Labour Government.

Dr. Donald Johnson: What about reduction?

Mr. Yates: We are not arguing the total abolition of compulsory National service.

Dr. Johnson: Will the Minister deal with the reduction of the period which, I understand, is the purpose of the debate?

Mr. Maclean: I have already said that I am going to speak of the possibility of reduction later on. Hon. Members opposite really should not assume that they are the only people who want peace. The hon. Member for Bradford, South said that anybody who wanted peace was suspect. Surely we all realise

that anyone in his senses wants peace, and we on this side are just as entitled to argue how best peace can be achieved as are hon. Members opposite.
We do not like conscription, and that has been made abundantly clear on numerous occasions by my right hon. Friends on this side of the House. What Government would like conscription? Surely hon. Members must realise that we would far sooner have young men productively employed in agriculture and industry than unproductively employed in the Forces.
It is sometimes suggested that we only have conscription because we are under the influence of the military, but surely the people who want a volunteer Army most of all are the generals. That also has been said again and again. But, much as we dislike conscription, we, like the Labour Government before us, are bound to maintain it for as long as we consider it necessary for the defence of the country, and we are convinced that at the present time it is necessary.
Before I go on to the main question, the possibility of reducing the period of National Service, I wish to refer to one point raised by the hon. Member for Ladywood—the allegedly harmful effect of National Service on the men called up. That, again, is an argument that we cannot accept. Out of 250,000 men there are bound to be misfits. There are bound to be men who come to grief or go to the bad, and men who fail to take the chances offered them, but I can assure hon. Members that, in addition to training National Service men so that they can play their part in the defence of their country, we also do everything we can to enable them to play their part as useful citizens when they have finished their time.
From what I have seen since I have been at the War Office, and also from what I saw during my service as a private soldier, I am personally convinced that the great majority of young men leave the Forces improved not only physically—of which we can produce abundant evidence—Jbut also, in most cases, mentally. They are mentally more alert and better citizens than they were when they went in.
My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for War has said that the period


of National Service will be reduced by as much as possible as soon as possible, and the same thing has been said several times in other words by other Members of the Government.

Mr. George Craddock: Will the hon. Member's right hon. Friend remember that this is an age of peace, or comparative peace? Surely he should do something about it more speedily than this.

Mr. Maclean: I am coming to that argument in a moment. If the hon. Member thinks that this age, up to the present time, can be termed an age of peace, he must have a different idea from most of us of what peace is. We all hope that there will be an improvement, and I believe that one of the chief reasons for any improvement will be that we have shown ourselves strong, and that our Allies have been strong.
When I say that the question of reducing the period of National Service is being constantly and urgently reviewed, I am not simply using a cliché. During the last six or seven years there have been eight major inquiries into the manpower question in the War Office, apart from other Service Departments, but the conclusion which we have reached is that at present—and I stress the words "at present"—no drastic reduction in the period is possible.
It is sometimes argued that because our commitments have been reduced there is no reason why we should not reduce the period of National Service accordingly. There again, hon. Members must realise that until quite recently the Armed Forces were very dangerously overstretched. They are still over-stretched to some extent; we still have a great many commitments left. But I am glad to say that we have been able to use some of the slack produced from the reduction of those commitments to build up what has all along been vitally necessary, namely, a strategic reserve in this country which is easily transportable by air to any part of the globe.
The necessity for a strategic reserve, and also the run-down in the Armed Forces—of which my right hon. Friend gave full details in his speech on the Army Estimates—have more than accounted for the men who have been released by the reduction in our commitments abroad and elsewhere.
As hon. Members will realise, the Armed Forces rely very heavily indeed upon National Service men. Of 790,000 men, no fewer than 280,000 are National Service men, and the Army, which is the biggest user in the three Services, is composed of roughly half National Service men.
The hon. Member suggested a reduction of 12 months. That would mean a fall in the strength of the active Forces of somewhere around 140,000 or 150,000 men. That would mean that we should have to recast the whole of our Armed Forces. A reduction even of six months would mean a loss of 72,000 men, quite apart from the effect that it would have upon Regular recruiting.
The hon. Member for Ladywood mentioned waste. He said that we were wasting the time of men in the Services. If the hon. Member will give me details of any such case, I shall be very glad to look into it and see that the National Service man in question does not waste his time any longer, even if he is doing so now. I must say, from what I have seen of the Army, that I very much doubt it.
Another point concerns what I might call the qualitative aspect of this matter. The time when the National Service man is of most use to the Army is during the last six months of his Service. By taking away that six months we should be depriving ourselves of the best period of his service. We depend very largely upon National Service for junior N.C.Os. and tradesmen. We could not afford to do without them.
It has been said that in a future war very few troops will be needed. But to suggest that the human element plays a small part in these matters simply does not take into account present circumstances. Unfortunately, it is still too early to presume that the cold war has come to an end. In the cold war, conventional forces are essential. It is largely because we have kept our conventional forces up to strength that we have managed to hold our own in the cold war. Because we have been strong and because our Allies have been strong, we have at last succeeded in achieving some reduction of tension in the world. We all hope that the good work which has been started at Geneva will go on, and that tension will be further reduced. We hope


that in due course that may render possible a reduction not only in National Service but in the whole crushing burden of armaments which is at present weighing on the world.
Meanwhile the Government have the whole question under constant review. The House may be quite sure, even if it is not possible to reduce the burden of National Service now, that as soon as it is possible the Government will take the necessary steps.

10.29 p.m.

Mr. James Callaghan: The Under-Secretary of State does not seem to realise that the criticism of the Labour Party, and the particular view of my hon. Friend, the Member for Bradford, South (Mr. G. Craddock), is that the Government are falling behind the pace of events. Of course they would have to recast the Forces if there were a reduction to 18 months. Of course they

would have to forgo the building up of a strategic reserve. What we complain of on this side of the House is that the Government are not facing those problems. The argument that the Under-Secretary has now put forward for two years is an argument for two years in perpetuity.
It is exactly because we believe that there should be this recasting of the Forces that we ask for a complete overhaul of our defence requirements, as we laid down in our Election manifesto, and a review of National Service in conjunction with that. We believe that to be the right course for the Government to follow.

The Question having been proposed at Ten o'clock, and the debate having continued for half an hour, Mr. SPEAKER adjourned the House without Question put, pursuant to the Standing Order.

Adjourned at half-past Ten o'clock.